Re: The good fight

If copyright is to be continued at all, should it not be taxed in the manner and fashion which I previously suggested, the 1st bit of revenue be tax exempt after that it be taxed to the hilt until it reaches 110% as soon as a $500,000 in revenue is generated.

Secondly, Since the financial accounting standards boards and the various groups in the AICPA have failed to require a separate balance sheet accounting for audited financial states, I think it should be mandated by the SEC to state on the face of the Balance sheet the total amount of intangible property including licenses from private as well as federal agencies and to schedule in a foot note in the balance sheet Note : whatever to the Financial Statements:

Intangible property:

Copyrights:                         Balance Sheet 
Basis                       Income Statement
         Reg #                         Costs         Market 
Value               Inclusions this year
                                                                                           This 
Yr.       Pr Yr. (Cum)
         1234343            $       30         $    500,000             $ 
300,000     $  1,100,000
         4234343                4,000            3,000,000 
2,000,000         6,200,000
  Additions this year
         8988878                   400.              300,000 
    50,000             0
         8945454                   600          11.000,000 
  41.200              0

Total   copyright         $  5,030         $ 
14,800,000              2,391,200      $  7,300,000

Patents:
        487848               $       30         $    500,000             $ 
  300,000     $  1,100,000
        343434                        35              500,000 
    300,000         1,100,000
    additions this yr:
        454544                      400.              300,000 
     50,000             0
         54544                       600.              300,000 
      50,000             0

Total 
Patents:           $    1,065        $   1,600,000            $    700,000 

    $ 2,200,000

Trade Marks

    487848                   $       30         $     500,000            $ 
  300,000     $  1,100,000
        343434                        35               500,000 
    300,000         1,100,000
    additions this yr:
        454544                       400.              300,000 
     50,000             0
         54544                        600.              300,000 
      50,000             0
Totals  Trademarks    $    1,065        $   1,600,000           $ 
700,000     $   2,200,000

Totals                       $    7,760        $ 
18,000,000           $  3,791,200     $  11,700,000

The method of accounting adopted for this report follows the policies and procedures of certain large corporations whose accountants are facing charges, as such the errors, omissions, and mistakes discovered herein, if any, were fully intended
sterling

At 10:03 AM 9/25/2002 -0500, M. Pollack wrote:
>No one is suggesting that "we" junk copyright. Just that it not be
>bloated. Reasonable minds may differ, but IMHO (and I am far from
>alone) the extent of control currently given copyright holders is very
>bloated.
>Unlike tangibles, furthermore, the economically minded agree that social
>welfare is enhanced by a lesser degree of control. See, for example, the
>Posner and Landes article circulated in the most SSRN updates -- arguing
>for requiring reregistration of copyrights at the end of each short
>period so that "Copyright" does not unnecessarily tie up works which are
>no longer earning royalties. While I would favor a different scheme, I
>mention this one merely to underline P&L's economic conclusion that
>long-term copyright for many works is not social beneficial.
>
>Edward Barrow wrote:
> >
> > On Monday, September 23, 2002 3:56 PM, M. Pollack
> > [SMTP:mpollack[_at_]memphis.edu] wrote:
> > > Ah! That is the whole point! Deserve should have a lot to do with it.
> > > And deserve always comes up when someone wants to change or strech the
> > > doctrine. The only reason that the market "rules" so much is that we
> > > (human beings) allow this to happen. The market is shaped by existing
> > > law and does not have to make high protectionist choices. If a multitude
> > > of basically good persons (esp. attorney & politicians) in combination
> > > form an institution where "deserving" is not material, we need to reform
> > > the institution-- perhaps by insisting that each actor take
> > > responsibility for her own choices. Or to quote the great sage Hillel:
> > > If I am not for myself, who will be for me? But being for
> myself alone,
> > > what am I? And if not now, when?
> >
> > I don't think this argument is particular to copyright material, but to the
> > whole of economics. The concept of the deserving "just price" - - for any
> > good (different from the market price) is extremely difficult; no-one has
> > yet found a way to determine such a thing objectively, although we all have
> > our own subjective notions of what it should be. The countries of the
> > former Soviet block tried non-market methods of determining prices, without
> > a great deal of success.
> >
> > Copyright arguably increases the market price, for everyone except the
> > first purchaser of a work. But in the absence of copyright, the first
> > purchaser must cover all the author's costs of time, materials and risk.
> > Private patronage by the wealthy, and state and commercial sponsorship are
> > all possible alternatives to copyright; but throughout the many months of
> > these exchanges I have yet to see the anti-copyright camp either promoting
> > these alternatives or suggesting others.
> >
> > Edward Barrow
> > New Media Copyright Consultant
> > http://www.copyweb.co.uk/
> > ***Important: see http://www.copyweb.co.uk/email.htm for information
> > about the legal status of this email ***
>
>--
>Malla Pollack
>Visiting Associate Professor
>University of Memphis, Law
>mpollack[_at_]memphis.edu
Received on Fri Sep 27 2002 - 02:22:55 GMT