Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Some thoughts on a "Copyright Offensive"

zotz (3951) writes | more than 7 years ago

User Journal 3

Here are some thoughts for your consideration:

1. All 'non'marked' works get an automatic copyleft, not an automatic copyright.

2. Copyleft works can be registered for free, copyright works incurr a registration fee.

3. There is a yearly copyright tax imposed on copyright works, copyleft works are exempt.

4. The copyright tax is based on a percentage of the copyright holder declared value of the work.

Here are some thoughts for your consideration:

1. All 'non'marked' works get an automatic copyleft, not an automatic copyright.

2. Copyleft works can be registered for free, copyright works incurr a registration fee.

3. There is a yearly copyright tax imposed on copyright works, copyleft works are exempt.

4. The copyright tax is based on a percentage of the copyright holder declared value of the work.

5. The copyright holder will be encouraged to declare an honest value by having to sell the copyright to to work at the declared value or 5 percent above that value to any and all comers. At the value if the purchaser will put the work under a copyleft, 5 percent above if the purchaser will keep the work copyright.

6. Copyright status lasts for 10 years, then the works convert to copyleft for another ten then they go into the public domain.

7. Orignally copyleft works remain copyleft for the life of the author (and perhaps plys whatever.)

8. Works building on public domain works are not elegible for copyright status, only copyleft. (Does this make any practical sense??)

all the best,

drew

cancel ×

3 comments

Interesting (1)

Paradise Pete (33184) | more than 7 years ago | (#17114436)

#1: I like this, but with some amount of grace period to get a copyright.
#2: OK.
#3: I think the tax rate should be very small at first and much larger towards the end. This does a few things - it gives a small fry a chance to make some money, and then later encourages early "retirement" of the copyright.
#4: Hard to judge, but interesting. I think this needs some thought/work.
#5: Encourages "copyright squatting." There'd be companies with no other function than to sit and wait for a work to suddenly get valuable, then they could swoop in. And the only one who wouldn't be allowed to do this would be the very person who created the work. Perhaps some sort of "refiling" should be allowed, as in the way an amended tax return works, where there'd of course be some penalties and interest.
#6: Sounds good.

A bunch of good ideas, that of course need a lot of thought.

Re:Interesting (1)

zotz (3951) | more than 7 years ago | (#17134398)

"#1: I like this, but with some amount of grace period to get a copyright."

Could work but would cause problems. If you can't remember to put a copyright notice on your work when you publish it, it gets a copyleft. You want a copyright put a notice.

"#3: I think the tax rate should be very small at first and much larger towards the end. This does a few things - it gives a small fry a chance to make some money, and then later encourages early "retirement" of the copyright."

I see you point and I doubt I would fight it too much if these plans were being pit in place. I don't think it is necessary though. Even at a flat rate, a less valuable work would pay less tax. The progression would encourage more release to the public domains though.

"#4: Hard to judge, but interesting. I think this needs some thought/work."

Lets hash it out some. Im my thoughts though, 4 and 5 go together as 5 keeps 4 to an honest figure.

"#5: Encourages "copyright squatting." There'd be companies with no other function than to sit and wait for a work to suddenly get valuable, then they could swoop in. And the only one who wouldn't be allowed to do this would be the very person who created the work. Perhaps some sort of "refiling" should be allowed, as in the way an amended tax return works, where there'd of course be some penalties and interest."

How about this. If the person buying wants to take over the copyright and keep it as a copyright, you get to ammend and pay (back to time zero plus interest and penalties) or sell at your option but if the buyer wants to take it and put it under copyleft, you have to let it go.

7. any thoughts on seven?

all the best,

drew

value (1)

1u3hr (530656) | more than 7 years ago | (#17142178)

5. The copyright holder will be encouraged to declare an honest value by having to sell the copyright to to work at the declared value

The value of a copyright is very variable. If it's a novel, it could be worth $100; but if optioned as a movie, $1 million. And many other ways the value could change, and the author is unlikely to be in a good position to judge this and would either lowball himself or set the value too high, more depending on his ego than any rational system. I think it's simpler and ultimately fairer to just have a small fixed fee and forget about this clause.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...