Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Markham
The problem with these theories is how do you graduate the payments. Do you pay a "Bob Dylan" level composer the same as me. Or him the same as me for creating porn?
Does a company who created the latest computer game, get as much as someone who creates something on the level a 5 year old can play or the tennis game?
|
did you even read the proposal
each citizen would be given 100 tax credit allowance
a bob dylan level composer would have a lot more fans then someone of you skill level
so the solution would be market driven
1 million fans would attribute 1 dollar of that tax deductible = 1 million a year
your crappy ass content
50 fans would attribute 1 dollar of that tax deductible = 50 /year
Quote:
|
And if there is such a system created, who does it, who pays for it and how does it work?
|
simplest solution extend the charitable tax deduction to any purchase of creative common share and share alike content.
add a 100% tax rate to all non CC-SA content to make up the short fall.
let the market competition define which is the better solution.
Quote:
Ultimately piracy isn't about freedom. It's about getting something for nothing.
I have the solution. Just came to me. All B/W used is charged at around $0.10 a mega bite and the proceeds goes to fund the creators of copyright material.
Problem solved. 
|
so your solution to a broken government granted monopoly is propping up that monopoly with a government tax.
you don't understand the problem do you.
Quote:
Here he assumes that the cost of the product is going to be sliced by doing away with the copyright element. So lets follow his route and assume everything is for free.
Who pays the programmers to write the program for the game. The people who made the box design, packaging, duplication, delivery and selling of the item?
This can be adjusted to all the copyright material out there. These people need paying, so who pays them and how is it worked out?
|
do you not understand the concept of open source
who pays for all this stuff in the Linux world
same principle applies
this is a straw man argument to try and defend a monopoly that is not need
if the monopoly disappears every company can take that work extend it
sell scarce components with it (access to the guys who wrote the code, in support contracts -- ala red hat)