Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Markham
So your idea doesn't work. I can't get paid using your system, unless they allow tax deductible payments to overseas companies. Nor can I deduct a payment to a foreign country under my tax system.
|
93% of all the current tax systems have treaties with the US that would in fact allow you to make the tax deduction if you simple extended 501 c to include cc-sa. (either totally for free or with a couple of hours of paper work)
for that 7 % that isn't covered (your specific example being one) it doesn't work.
Woopptie fucking do.
That still a much better success ratio that trying to get US copyright laws to be enforced in other countries.
Quote:
And replace it with a system that doesn't work. 
|
1. never said replace simple allow the option or choice
2. with one simple change (extending 501 c status to cc-sa ) you would get a better international support then the current copyright treats provide for the current system.
so y
Quote:
You haven't explain away the Government control element. Does the US Government allow tax deductions on a charity to support dependents of suicide bombers? Extreme but you get my drift.
|
so your so disperate to try and make the government control your equating open content to terorism
your like the morons who claim that you should have a right to censor free speech commentary "this is a great video" because it illegal to FALSELY yell fire in a crowded theater.
As if loss of a couple bucks of revenue is equal to getting trampled to death
As if loss of a free expression which serves a constructive bases of the community is equal to expression which only results in pure harm (trampled to death, damage to property, loss of paid for service etc etc etc.
When open source becomes declared a terrorist organization you can argue such control is necessary.
you have to cross a very high bar to justify denying this.
Quote:
|
First Amendment doesn't cover your scheme which is about payment. If it does, you don't have a snowballs chance in hell of getting this through. Not that you have a chance any way.
|
sure it does.
Your subsidizing one form of free expression thru the granting of a monopoly power that by definition put limits on people free speech rights.
and your providing no equal compensation for system that by definition does not hinder a persons free speech rights.
The act of denying the tax deduction as a charitable contribution for public good (openly accessible content to build derived work upon ) would represent preferential treatment for a censoring based solution.
That preferential treatment for a censoring based solution is very much a first amendment issue.