Re: The Eric Eldred Act (fwd)

• Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 02:46:22 -0600 (CST) From: sstouden[_at_]thelinks.com To: Multiple recipients of list <cni-copyright[_at_]cni.org> Subject: Re: The Eric Eldred Act (sorree, that number should be)

30 years * $6/hr * 2 * 2080 = $748,000

some time back i proposed a signficant tax on thislist and showed graduated its impact on the revenues earned from the monopolized copyright in such a fashion that person who had written a book, or developed a painting or soime other expression and it was his or her only such contribution. that it would yield to that person the same net after tax value as would 2x the min. wage for 30 years.

so if the min. wage ws 6 bucks / hour then 2080 hours * 30 years * 2 = 124,800 = &48,00 net proceeds allowed to the copyright holder, author or owner, whichever over the economic lifetime of the coyright. As i recall the first $ 50,000 of earnings from the venture was tax free and after that it was taxed at a rate graduated to limit the copyright holders potential lifetime benefit from just one copyright to $748,800. This was based on the ditch digger example.

I think the SEC should be made to require all reporting companies to list in detail their copyrights and patents, one by one together with the earnings from each cummulatively and for the current year:

   registration    Earned to        earned this    date monopoly
    Numbber          date            period        expires
  copyright # 1   3,000,000          $500,000      2/04/3010
  copyright # 2   1,800,000          $ 40,000      2/09/4000

   etc.
sterling

On Mon, 27 Jan 2003, Denis
Borges Barbosa wrote:

> That is the idea advanced by Richard Posner in the manuscript of his
> oncoming book on The Economics of IP.
>
> At 13:46 26/01/03 -0500, you wrote:
> >In response to the stunning decision in Eldred v. Ashcroft, we have come up
> >with an idea that we would like discussed here.
> >
> >It is for a tiny tax on works in the 50th year of copyright. If the tax is
> >not paid, the work would enter the public domain. Thus works with no
> >commercial value would enter the public domain much as they would earlier when
> >the term expired. Works with commercial value would be paid for and would
> >enjoy the current copyright term. The tax could go to support the
> >registration process.
> >
> >Maybe 50 years of copyright is too long. The Economist has spoken out for a
> >14 year renewable term. But we recognize we have to make significant
> >compromises with the strong copyright interests in Hollywood in order to
> >persuade Congress about the benefits of this proposed act.
> >
> >For more information, please see
> >http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/lessig/blog/archives/EAFAQ.html
> >
> >What do you think?
> >
> >
> >____
> >"Eric" Eric Eldred mailto:ericeldred[_at_]usa.net
> >http://www.eldritchpress.org "Eldritch Press"
>
>
Received on Tue Jan 28 2003 - 08:58:56 GMT