Beta
×

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!

Looking Back At Copyright Predictions

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 5 years ago | from the 20-20-hindsight dept.

The Courts 148

Techdirt has an interesting look back at some of the more interesting predictions on copyright. The article looks at two different pre-DMCA papers and compares them to what has happened in the world of copyright. "The second paper is by Pamela Samuelson, and it discusses (again, quite accurately) the coming power grab by "copyright maximalists" via the DMCA, entitled The Copyright Grab. It clearly saw the intention of the DMCA to remove user rights, and grant highly questionable additional rights and powers to copyright holders in an online world. Samuelson lays out many concerns about where this is headed -- including how these proposals appear to trample certain fair use rights -- and in retrospect, her fears seem to have been backed up by history. Samuelson, by the way, has just written a new paper that is also worth reading pointing out how ridiculous current copyright statutory rates are -- an issue of key importance in the ongoing Tenebaum lawsuit, which (thankfully) the judge in the case is going to consider."

cancel ×

148 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

FairTax (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27616903)

HR 25 IH

111th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 25

To promote freedom, fairness, and economic opportunity by repealing the income tax and other taxes, abolishing the Internal Revenue Service, and enacting a national sales tax to be administered primarily by the States.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

January 6, 2009

Mr. LINDER (for himself, Mr. KINGSTON, Mr. WESTMORELAND, Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida, Mr. YOUNG of Alaska, Mr. ALEXANDER, Mr. TIAHRT, Mr. AKIN, Mr. MCCAUL, Mr. PRICE of Georgia, Mr. HENSARLING, Mr. GINGREY of Georgia, Mr. DEAL of Georgia, Mr. WITTMAN, Mr. BURTON of Indiana, Mr. PENCE, Mr. POE of Texas, Mr. BROWN of South Carolina, Mr. BARTLETT, Mr. STEARNS, Mr. CARTER, Mr. FRANKS of Arizona, Mr. BRADY of Texas, Mr. SULLIVAN, Mr. CONAWAY, Mr. THORNBERRY, Mr. BILBRAY, Mr. DUNCAN, Mr. CULBERSON, Ms. FALLIN, Mr. BACHUS, Mr. KING of Iowa, Mr. LAMBORN, Mr. LUCAS, and Mr. NEUGEBAUER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To promote freedom, fairness, and economic opportunity by repealing the income tax and other taxes, abolishing the Internal Revenue Service, and enacting a national sales tax to be administered primarily by the States.

            Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

            (a) Short Title- This Act may be cited as the 'Fair Tax Act of 2009'.

            (b) Table of Contents- The table of contents for this Act is as follows:

                        Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

                        Sec. 2. Congressional findings.

TITLE I--REPEAL OF THE INCOME TAX, PAYROLL TAXES, AND ESTATE AND GIFT TAXES

                        Sec. 101. Income taxes repealed.

                        Sec. 102. Payroll taxes repealed.

                        Sec. 103. Estate and gift taxes repealed.

                        Sec. 104. Conforming amendments; effective date.

TITLE II--SALES TAX ENACTED

                        Sec. 201. Sales tax.

                        Sec. 202. Conforming and technical amendments.

TITLE III--OTHER MATTERS

                        Sec. 301. Phase-out of administration of repealed Federal taxes.

                        Sec. 302. Administration of other Federal taxes.

                        Sec. 303. Sales tax inclusive Social Security benefits indexation.

TITLE IV--SUNSET OF SALES TAX IF SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT NOT REPEALED

                        Sec. 401. Elimination of sales tax if Sixteenth Amendment not repealed.

SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS.

            (a) Findings Relating to Federal Income Tax- Congress finds the Federal income tax--

                        (1) retards economic growth and has reduced the standard of living of the American public;

                        (2) impedes the international competitiveness of United States industry;

                        (3) reduces savings and investment in the United States by taxing income multiple times;

                        (4) slows the capital formation necessary for real wages to steadily increase;

                        (5) lowers productivity;

                        (6) imposes unacceptable and unnecessary administrative and compliance costs on individual and business taxpayers;

                        (7) is unfair and inequitable;

                        (8) unnecessarily intrudes upon the privacy and civil rights of United States citizens;

                        (9) hides the true cost of government by embedding taxes in the costs of everything Americans buy;

                        (10) is not being complied with at satisfactory levels and therefore raises the tax burden on law abiding citizens; and

                        (11) impedes upward social mobility.

            (b) Findings Relating to Federal Payroll Taxes- Congress finds further that the Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes and self-employment taxes--

                        (1) raise the cost of employment;

                        (2) destroy jobs and cause unemployment; and

                        (3) have a disproportionately adverse impact on lower income Americans.

            (c) Findings Relating to Federal Estate and Gift Taxes- Congress finds further that the Federal estate and gift taxes--

                        (1) force family businesses and farms to be sold by the family to pay such taxes;

                        (2) discourage capital formation and entrepreneurship;

                        (3) foster the continued dominance of large enterprises over small family-owned companies and farms; and

                        (4) impose unacceptably high tax planning costs on small businesses and farms.

            (d) Findings Relating to National Sales Tax- Congress finds further that a broad-based national sales tax on goods and services purchased for final consumption--

                        (1) is similar in many respects to the sales and use taxes in place in 45 of the 50 States;

                        (2) will promote savings and investment;

                        (3) will promote fairness;

                        (4) will promote economic growth;

                        (5) will raise the standard of living;

                        (6) will increase investment;

                        (7) will enhance productivity and international competitiveness;

                        (8) will reduce administrative burdens on the American taxpayer;

                        (9) will improve upward social mobility; and

                        (10) will respect the privacy interests and civil rights of taxpayers.

            (e) Findings Relating to Administration of National Sales Tax- Congress further finds that--

                        (1) most of the practical experience administering sales taxes is found at the State governmental level;

                        (2) it is desirable to harmonize Federal and State collection and enforcement efforts to the maximum extent possible;

                        (3) it is sound tax administration policy to foster administration and collection of the Federal sales tax at the State level in return for a reasonable administration fee to the States; and

                        (4) businesses that must collect and remit taxes should receive reasonable compensation for the cost of doing so.

            (f) Findings Relating to Repeal of Present Federal Tax System- Congress further finds that the 16th amendment to the United States Constitution should be repealed.

TITLE I--REPEAL OF THE INCOME TAX, PAYROLL TAXES, AND ESTATE AND GIFT TAXES

SEC. 101. INCOME TAXES REPEALED.

            Subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to income taxes and self-employment taxes) is repealed.

SEC. 102. PAYROLL TAXES REPEALED.

            (a) In General- Subtitle C of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to payroll taxes and withholding of income taxes) is repealed.

            (b) Funding of Social Security- For funding of the Social Security Trust Funds from general revenue, see section 201 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 401).

SEC. 103. ESTATE AND GIFT TAXES REPEALED.

            Subtitle B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to estate and gift taxes) is repealed.

SEC. 104. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS; EFFECTIVE DATE.

            (a) Conforming Amendments- The Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended--

                        (1) by striking subtitle H (relating to financing of Presidential election campaigns), and

                        (2) by redesignating--

                                    (A) subtitle D (relating to miscellaneous excise taxes) as subtitle B,

                                    (B) subtitle E (relating to alcohol, tobacco, and certain other excise taxes) as subtitle C,

                                    (C) subtitle F (relating to procedure and administration) as subtitle D,

                                    (D) subtitle G (relating to the Joint Committee on Taxation) as subtitle E,

                                    (E) subtitle I (relating to the Trust Fund Code) as subtitle F,

                                    (F) subtitle J (relating to coal industry health benefits) as subtitle G, and

                                    (G) subtitle K (relating to group health plan portability, access, and renewability requirements) as subtitle H.

            (b) Redesignation of 1986 Code-

                        (1) IN GENERAL- The Internal Revenue Code of 1986 enacted on October 22, 1986, as heretofore, hereby, or hereafter amended, may be cited as the Internal Revenue Code of 2009.

                        (2) REFERENCES IN LAWS, ETC- Except when inappropriate, any reference in any law, Executive order, or other document--

                                    (A) to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall include a reference to the Internal Revenue Code of 2009, and

                                    (B) to the Internal Revenue Code of 2009 shall include a reference to the provisions of law formerly known as the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

            (c) Additional Amendments- For additional conforming amendments, see section 202 of this Act.

            (d) Effective Date- Except as otherwise provided in this Act, the amendments made by this Act shall take effect on January 1, 2011.

TITLE II--SALES TAX ENACTED

SEC. 201. SALES TAX.

            (a) In General- The Internal Revenue Code of 2009 is amended by inserting before subtitle B (as redesignated by section 104(a)(2)(A)) the following new subtitle:

'Subtitle A--Sales Tax

                        'Sec. 1. Principles of interpretation.

                        'Sec. 2. Definitions.

'Chapter 1. Interpretation; Definitions; Imposition of Tax; etc.

'Chapter 2. Credits; Refunds

'Chapter 3. Family Consumption Allowance

'Chapter 4. Federal and State Cooperative Tax Administration

'Chapter 5. Other Administrative Provisions

'Chapter 6. Collections; Appeals; Taxpayer Rights

'Chapter 7. Special Rules

'Chapter 8. Financial Intermediation Services

'Chapter 9. Additional Matters

'SEC. 1. PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION.

            '(a) In General- Any court, the Secretary, and any sales tax administering authority shall consider the purposes of this subtitle (as set forth in subsection (b)) as the primary aid in statutory construction.

            '(b) Purposes- The purposes of this subtitle are as follows:

                        '(1) To raise revenue needed by the Federal Government in a manner consistent with the other purposes of this subtitle.

                        '(2) To tax all consumption of goods and services in the United States once, without exception, but only once.

                        '(3) To prevent double, multiple, or cascading taxation.

                        '(4) To simplify the tax law and reduce the administration costs of, and the costs of compliance with, the tax law.

                        '(5) To provide for the administration of the tax law in a manner that respects privacy, due process, individual rights when interacting with the government, the presumption of innocence in criminal proceedings, and the presumption of lawful behavior in civil proceedings.

                        '(6) To increase the role of State governments in Federal tax administration because of State government expertise in sales tax administration.

                        '(7) To enhance generally cooperation and coordination among State tax administrators; and to enhance cooperation and coordination among Federal and State tax administrators, consistent with the principle of intergovernmental tax immunity.

            '(c) Secondary Aids to Statutory Construction- As a secondary aid in statutory construction, any court, the Secretary, and any sales tax administering authority shall consider--

                        '(1) the common law canons of statutory construction;

                        '(2) the meaning and construction of concepts and terms used in the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 as in effect before the effective date of this subtitle; and

                        '(3) construe any ambiguities in this Act in favor of reserving powers to the States respectively, or to the people.

'SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

            '(a) In General- For purposes of this subtitle--

                        '(1) AFFILIATED FIRMS- A firm is affiliated with another if 1 firm owns 50 percent or more of--

                                    '(A) the voting shares in a corporation, or

                                    '(B) the capital interests of a business firm that is not a corporation.

                        '(2) CONFORMING STATE SALES TAX- The term 'conforming State sales tax' means a sales tax imposed by a State that adopts the same definition of taxable property and services as adopted by this subtitle.

                        '(3) DESIGNATED COMMERCIAL PRIVATE COURIER SERVICE- The term 'designated commercial private courier service' means a firm designated as such by the Secretary or any sales tax administering authority, upon application of the firm, if the firm--

                                    '(A) provides its services to the general public,

                                    '(B) records electronically to its data base kept in the regular course of its business the date on which an item was given to such firm for delivery, and

                                    '(C) has been operating for at least 1 year.

                        '(4) EDUCATION AND TRAINING- The term 'education and training' means tuition for primary, secondary, or postsecondary level education, and job-related training courses. Such term does not include room, board, sports activities, recreational activities, hobbies, games, arts or crafts or cultural activities.

                        '(5) GROSS PAYMENTS- The term 'gross payments' means payments for taxable property or services, including Federal taxes imposed by this title.

                        '(6) INTANGIBLE PROPERTY-

                                    '(A) IN GENERAL- The term 'intangible property' includes copyrights, trademarks, patents, goodwill, financial instruments, securities, commercial paper, debts, notes and bonds, and other property deemed intangible at common law. The Secretary shall, by regulation resolve differences among the provisions of common law of the several States.

                                    '(B) CERTAIN TYPES OF PROPERTY- Such term does not include tangible personal property (or rents or leaseholds of any term thereon), real property (or rents or leaseholds of any term thereon) and computer software.

                        '(7) PERSON- The term 'person' means any natural person, and unless the context clearly does not allow it, any corporation, partnership, limited liability company, trust, estate, government, agency, administration, organization, association, or other legal entity (foreign or domestic.)

                        '(8) PRODUCE, PROVIDE, RENDER, OR SELL TAXABLE PROPERTY OR SERVICES-

                                    '(A) IN GENERAL- A taxable property or service is used to produce, provide, render, or sell a taxable property or service if such property or service is purchased by a person engaged in a trade or business for the purpose of employing or using such taxable property or service in the production, provision, rendering, or sale of other taxable property or services in the ordinary course of that trade or business.

                                    '(B) RESEARCH, EXPERIMENTATION, TESTING, AND DEVELOPMENT- Taxable property or services used in a trade or business for the purpose of research, experimentation, testing, and development shall be treated as used to produce, provide, render, or sell taxable property or services.

                                    '(C) INSURANCE PAYMENTS- Taxable property or services purchased by an insurer on behalf of an insured shall be treated as used to produce, provide, render, or sell taxable property or services if the premium for the insurance contract giving rise to the insurer's obligation was subject to tax pursuant to section 801 (relating to financial intermediation services).

                                    '(D) EDUCATION AND TRAINING- Education and training shall be treated as services used to produce, provide, render, or sell taxable property or services.

                        '(9) REGISTERED SELLER- The term 'registered seller' means a person registered pursuant to section 502.

                        '(10) SALES TAX ADMINISTERING AUTHORITY- The term 'sales tax administering authority' means--

                                    '(A) the State agency designated to collect and administer the sales tax imposed by this subtitle, in an administering State, or

                                    '(B) the Secretary, in a State that is neither--

                                                '(i) an administering State, nor

                                                '(ii) a State that has elected to have its sales tax administered by an administering State.

                        '(11) SECRETARY- The term 'Secretary' means the Secretary of the Treasury.

                        '(12) TAXABLE EMPLOYER-

                                    '(A) IN GENERAL- The term 'taxable employer' includes--

                                                '(i) any household employing domestic servants, and

                                                '(ii) any government except for government enterprises (as defined in section 704).

                                    '(B) EXCEPTIONS- The term 'taxable employer' does not include any employer which is--

                                                '(i) engaged in a trade or business,

                                                '(ii) a not-for-profit organization (as defined in section 706), or

                                                '(iii) a government enterprise (as defined in section 704).

                                    '(C) CROSS REFERENCE- For rules relating to collection and remittance of tax on wages by taxable employers, see section 103(b)(2).

                        '(13) TAX INCLUSIVE FAIR MARKET VALUE- The term 'tax inclusive fair market value' means the fair market value of taxable property or services plus the tax imposed by this subtitle.

                        '(14) TAXABLE PROPERTY OR SERVICE-

                                    '(A) GENERAL RULE- The term 'taxable property or service' means--

                                                '(i) any property (including leaseholds of any term or rents with respect to such property) but excluding--

                                                            '(I) intangible property, and

                                                            '(II) used property, and

                                                '(ii) any service (including any financial intermediation services as determined by section 801).

                                    '(B) SERVICE- For purposes of subparagraph (A), the term 'service'--

                                                '(i) shall include any service performed by an employee for which the employee is paid wages or a salary by a taxable employer, and

                                                '(ii) shall not include any service performed by an employee for which the employee is paid wages or a salary--

                                                            '(I) by an employer in the regular course of the employer's trade or business,

                                                            '(II) by an employer that is a not-for-profit organization (as defined in section 706),

                                                            '(III) by an employer that is a government enterprise (as defined in section 704), and

                                                            '(IV) by taxable employers to employees directly providing education and training.

                        '(15) UNITED STATES- The term 'United States', when used in the geographical sense, means each of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States.

                        '(16) USED PROPERTY- The term 'used property' means--

                                    '(A) property on which the tax imposed by section 101 has been collected and for which no credit has been allowed under section 202, 203, or 205, or

                                    '(B) property that was held other than for a business purpose (as defined in section 102(b)) on December 31, 2010.

                        '(17) WAGES AND SALARY- The terms 'wage' and 'salary' mean all compensation paid for employment service including cash compensation, employee benefits, disability insurance, or wage replacement insurance payments, unemployment compensation insurance, workers' compensation insurance, and the fair market value of any other consideration paid by an employer to an employee in consideration for employment services rendered.

            '(b) Cross References-

                        '(1) For the definition of business purposes, see section 102(b).

                        '(2) For the definition of insurance contract, see section 206(e).

                        '(3) For the definition of qualified family, see section 302.

                        '(4) For the definition of monthly poverty level, see section 303.

                        '(5) For the definition of large seller, see section 501(e)(3).

                        '(6) For the definition of hobby activities, see section 701.

                        '(7) For the definition of gaming sponsor, see section 701(a).

                        '(8) For the definition of a chance, see section 701(b).

                        '(9) For the definition of government enterprise, see section 704(b).

                        '(10) For the definition of mixed use property, see section 705.

                        '(11) For the definition of qualified not-for-profit organization, see section 706.

                        '(12) For the definition of financial intermediation services, see section 801.

'CHAPTER 1--INTERPRETATION; DEFINITIONS; IMPOSITION OF TAX; ETC

                        'Sec. 101. Imposition of sales tax.

                        'Sec. 102. Intermediate and export sales.

                        'Sec. 103. Rules relating to collection and remittance of tax.

'SEC. 101. IMPOSITION OF SALES TAX.

            '(a) In General- There is hereby imposed a tax on the use or consumption in the United States of taxable property or services.

            '(b) Rate-

                        '(1) FOR 2011- In the calendar year 2011, the rate of tax is 23 percent of the gross payments for the taxable property or service.

                        '(2) FOR YEARS AFTER 2011- For years after the calendar year 2011, the rate of tax is the combined Federal tax rate percentage (as defined in paragraph (3)) of the gross payments for the taxable property or service.

                        '(3) COMBINED FEDERAL TAX RATE PERCENTAGE- The combined Federal tax rate percentage is the sum of--

                                    '(A) the general revenue rate (as defined in paragraph (4),

                                    '(B) the old-age, survivors and disability insurance rate, and

                                    '(C) the hospital insurance rate.

                        '(4) GENERAL REVENUE RATE- The general revenue rate shall be 14.91 percent.

            '(c) Coordination With Import Duties- The tax imposed by this section is in addition to any import duties imposed by chapter 4 of title 19, United States Code. The Secretary shall provide by regulation that, to the maximum extent practicable, the tax imposed by this section on imported taxable property and services is collected and administered in conjunction with any applicable import duties imposed by the United States.

            '(d) Liability for Tax-

                        '(1) IN GENERAL- The person using or consuming taxable property or services in the United States is liable for the tax imposed by this section, except as provided in paragraph (2) of this subsection.

                        '(2) EXCEPTION WHERE TAX PAID TO SELLER- A person using or consuming a taxable property or service in the United States is not liable for the tax imposed by this section if the person pays the tax to a person selling the taxable property or service and receives from such person a purchaser's receipt within the meaning of section 509.

'SEC. 102. INTERMEDIATE AND EXPORT SALES.

            '(a) In General- For purposes of this subtitle--

                        '(1) BUSINESS AND EXPORT PURPOSES- No tax shall be imposed under section 101 on any taxable property or service purchased for a business purpose in a trade or business.

                        '(2) INVESTMENT PURPOSE- No tax shall be imposed under section 101 on any taxable property or service purchased for an investment purpose and held exclusively for an investment purpose.

                        '(3) STATE GOVERNMENT FUNCTIONS- No tax shall be imposed under section 101 on State government functions that do not constitute the final consumption of property or services.

            '(b) Business Purposes- For purposes of this section, the term 'purchased for a business purpose in a trade or business' means purchased by a person engaged in a trade or business and used in that trade or business--

                        '(1) for resale,

                        '(2) to produce, provide, render, or sell taxable property or services, or

                        '(3) in furtherance of other bona fide business purposes.

            '(c) Investment Purposes- For purposes of this section, the term 'purchased for an investment purpose' means property purchased exclusively for purposes of appreciation or the production of income but not entailing more than minor personal efforts.

'SEC. 103. RULES RELATING TO COLLECTION AND REMITTANCE OF TAX.

            '(a) Liability for Collection and Remittance of the Tax- Except as provided otherwise by this section, any tax imposed by this subtitle shall be collected and remitted by the seller of taxable property or services (including financial intermediation services).

            '(b) Tax To Be Remitted by Purchaser in Certain Circumstances-

                        '(1) IN GENERAL- In the case of taxable property or services purchased outside of the United States and imported into the United States for use or consumption in the United States, the purchaser shall remit the tax imposed by section 101.

                        '(2) CERTAIN WAGES OR SALARY- In the case of wages or salary paid by a taxable employer which are taxable services, the employer shall remit the tax imposed by section 101.

            '(c) Conversion of Business or Export Property or Services- Property or services purchased for a business purpose in a trade or business or for export (sold untaxed pursuant to section 102(a)) that is subsequently converted to personal use shall be deemed purchased at the time of conversion and shall be subject to the tax imposed by section 101 at the fair market value of the converted property as of the date of conversion. The tax shall be due as if the property had been sold at the fair market value during the month of conversion. The person using or consuming the converted property is liable for and shall remit the tax.

            '(d) Barter Transactions- If gross payment for taxable property or services is made in other than money, then the person responsible for collecting and remitting the tax shall remit the tax to the sales tax administering authority in money as if gross payment had been made in money at the tax inclusive fair market value of the taxable property or services purchased.

'CHAPTER 2--CREDITS; REFUNDS

                        'Sec. 201. Credits and refunds.

                        'Sec. 202. Business use conversion credit.

                        'Sec. 203. Intermediate and export sales credit.

                        'Sec. 204. Administration credit.

                        'Sec. 205. Bad debt credit.

                        'Sec. 206. Insurance proceeds credit.

                        'Sec. 207. Refunds.

'SEC. 201. CREDITS AND REFUNDS.

            '(a) In General- Each person shall be allowed a credit with respect to the taxes imposed by section 101 for each month in an amount equal to the sum of--

                        '(1) such person's business use conversion credit pursuant to section 202 for such month,

                        '(2) such person's intermediate and export sales credit pursuant to section 203 for such month,

                        '(3) the administration credit pursuant to section 204 for such month,

                        '(4) the bad debt credit pursuant to section 205 for such month,

                        '(5) the insurance proceeds credit pursuant to section 206 for such month,

                        '(6) the transitional inventory credit pursuant to section 902, and

                        '(7) any amount paid in excess of the amount due.

            '(b) Credits Not Additive- Only one credit allowed by chapter 2 may be taken with respect to any particular gross payment.

'SEC. 202. BUSINESS USE CONVERSION CREDIT.

            '(a) In General- For purposes of section 201, a person's business use conversion credit for any month is the aggregate of the amounts determined under subsection (b) with respect to taxable property and services--

                        '(1) on which tax was imposed by section 101 (and actually paid), and

                        '(2) which commenced to be 95 percent or more used during such month for business purposes (within the meaning of section 102(b)).

            '(b) Amount of Credit- The amount determined under this paragraph with respect to any taxable property or service is the lesser of--

                        '(1) the product of--

                                    '(A) the rate imposed by section 101, and

                                    '(B) the quotient that is--

                                                '(i) the fair market value of the property or service when its use is converted, divided by

                                                '(ii) the quantity that is 1 minus the tax rate imposed by section 101, or

                        '(2) the amount of tax paid with respect to such taxable property or service, including the amount, if any, determined in accordance with section 705 (relating to mixed use property).

'SEC. 203. INTERMEDIATE AND EXPORT SALES CREDIT.

            'For purposes of section 201, a person's intermediate and export sales credit is the amount of sales tax paid on the purchase of any taxable property or service purchased for--

                        '(1) a business purpose in a trade or business (as defined in section 102(b)), or

                        '(2) export from the United States for use or consumption outside the United States.

'SEC. 204. ADMINISTRATION CREDIT.

            '(a) In General- Every person filing a timely monthly report (with regard to extensions) in compliance with section 501 shall be entitled to a taxpayer administrative credit equal to the greater of--

                        '(1) $200, or

                        '(2) one-quarter of 1 percent of the tax remitted.

            '(b) Limitation- The credit allowed under this section shall not exceed 20 percent of the tax due to be remitted prior to the application of any credit or credits permitted by section 201.

'SEC. 205. BAD DEBT CREDIT.

            '(a) Financial Intermediation Services- Any person who has experienced a bad debt (other than unpaid invoices within the meaning of subsection (b)) shall be entitled to a credit equal to the product of--

                        '(1) the rate imposed by section 101, and

                        '(2) the quotient that is--

                                    '(A) the amount of the bad debt (as defined in section 802), divided by

                                    '(B) the quantity that is 1 minus the rate imposed by section 101.

            '(b) Unpaid Invoices- Any person electing the accrual method pursuant to section 503 that has with respect to a transaction--

                        '(1) invoiced the tax imposed by section 101,

                        '(2) remitted the invoiced tax,

                        '(3) actually delivered the taxable property or performed the taxable services invoiced, and

                        '(4) not been paid 180 days after date the invoice was due to be paid,

            shall be entitled to a credit equal to the amount of tax remitted and unpaid by the purchaser.

            '(c) Subsequent Payment- Any payment made with respect to a transaction subsequent to a section 205 credit being taken with respect to that transaction shall be subject to tax in the month the payment was received as if a tax inclusive sale of taxable property and services in the amount of the payment had been made.

            '(d) Partial Payments- Partial payments shall be treated as pro rata payments of the underlying obligation and shall be allocated proportionately--

                        '(1) for fully taxable payments, between payment for the taxable property and service and tax, and

                        '(2) for partially taxable payments, among payment for the taxable property and service, tax and other payment.

            '(e) Related Parties- The credit provided by this section shall not be available with respect to sales made to related parties. For purposes of this section, related party means affiliated firms and family members (as defined in section 302(b)).

'SEC. 206. INSURANCE PROCEEDS CREDIT.

            '(a) In General- A person receiving a payment from an insurer by virtue of an insurance contract shall be entitled to a credit in an amount determined by subsection (b), less any amount paid to the insured by the insurer pursuant to subsection (c), if the entire premium (except that portion allocable to the investment account of the underlying policy) for the insurance contract giving rise to the insurer's obligation to make a payment to the insured was subject to the tax imposed by section 101 and said tax was paid.

            '(b) Credit Amount- The amount of the credit shall be the product of--

                        '(1) the rate imposed by section 101, and

                        '(2) the quotient that is--

                                    '(A) the amount of the payment made by the insurer to the insured, divided by

                                    '(B) the quantity that is 1 minus the rate imposed by section 101.

            '(c) Administrative Option- The credit determined in accordance with subsection (b) shall be paid by the insurer to the insured and the insurer shall be entitled to the credit in lieu of the insured, except that the insurer may elect, in a form prescribed by the Secretary, to not pay the credit and require the insured to make application for the credit. In the event of such election, the insurer shall provide to the Secretary and the insured the name and tax identification number of the insurer and of the insured and indicate the proper amount of the credit.

            '(d) Coordination With Respect to Exemption- If taxable property or services purchased by an insurer on behalf of an insured are purchased free of tax by virtue of section 2(a)(8)(C), then the credit provided by this section shall not be available with respect to that purchase.

            '(e) Insurance Contract- For purposes of subsection (a), the term insurance contract' shall include a life insurance contract, a health insurance contract, a property and casualty loss insurance contract, a general liability insurance contract, a marine insurance contract, a fire insurance contract, an accident insurance contract, a disability insurance contract, a long-term care insurance contract, and an insurance contract that provides a combination of these types of insurance.

'SEC. 207. REFUNDS.

            '(a) Registered Sellers- If a registered seller files a monthly tax report with an overpayment, then, upon application by the registered seller in a form prescribed by the sales tax administering authority, the overpayment shown on the report shall be refunded to the registered seller within 60 days of receipt of said application. In the absence of such application, the overpayment may be carried forward, without interest, by the person entitled to the credit.

            '(b) Other Persons- If a person other than a registered seller has an overpayment for any month, then, upon application by the person in a form prescribed by the sales tax administering authority, the credit balance due shall be refunded to the person within 60 days of receipt of said application.

            '(c) Interest- No interest shall be paid on any balance due from the sales tax administering authority under this subsection for any month if such balance due is paid within 60 days after the application for refund is received. Balances due not paid within 60 days after the application for refund is received shall bear interest from the date of application. Interest shall be paid at the Federal short-term rate (as defined in section 511).

            '(d) Suspension of Period To Pay Refund Only if Federal or State Court Ruling- The 60-day periods under subsections (a) and (b) shall be suspended with respect to a purported overpayment (or portion thereof) only during any period that there is in effect a preliminary, temporary, or final ruling from a Federal or State court that there is reasonable cause to believe that such overpayment may not actually be due.

'CHAPTER 3--FAMILY CONSUMPTION ALLOWANCE

                        'Sec. 301. Family consumption allowance.

                        'Sec. 302. Qualified family.

                        'Sec. 303. Monthly poverty level.

                        'Sec. 304. Rebate mechanism.

                        'Sec. 305. Change in family circumstances.

'SEC. 301. FAMILY CONSUMPTION ALLOWANCE.

            'Each qualified family shall be eligible to receive a sales tax rebate each month. The sales tax rebate shall be in an amount equal to the product of--

                        '(1) the rate of tax imposed by section 101, and

                        '(2) the monthly poverty level.

'SEC. 302. QUALIFIED FAMILY.

            '(a) General Rule- For purposes of this chapter, the term 'qualified family' shall mean 1 or more family members sharing a common residence. All family members sharing a common residence shall be considered as part of 1 qualified family.

            '(b) Family Size Determination-

                        '(1) IN GENERAL- To determine the size of a qualified family for purposes of this chapter, family members shall mean--

                                    '(A) an individual,

                                    '(B) the individual's spouse,

                                    '(C) all lineal ancestors and descendants of said individual (and such individual's spouse),

                                    '(D) all legally adopted children of such individual (and such individual's spouse), and

                                    '(E) all children under legal guardianship of such individual (or such individual's spouse).

                        '(2) IDENTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS- In order for a person to be counted as a member of the family for purposes of determining the size of the qualified family, such person must--

                                    '(A) have a bona fide Social Security number; and

                                    '(B) be a lawful resident of the United States.

            '(c) Children Living Away From Home-

                        '(1) STUDENTS LIVING AWAY FROM HOME- Any person who was a registered student during not fewer than 5 months in a calendar year while living away from the common residence of a qualified family but who receives over 50 percent of such person's support during a calendar year from members of the qualified family shall be included as part of the family unit whose members provided said support for purposes of this chapter.

                        '(2) CHILDREN OF DIVORCED OR SEPARATED PARENTS- If a child's parents are divorced or legally separated, a child for purposes of this chapter shall be treated as part of the qualified family of the custodial parent. In cases of joint custody, the custodial parent for purposes of this chapter shall be the parent that has custody of the child for more than one-half of the time during a given calendar year. A parent entitled to be treated as the custodial parent pursuant to this paragraph may release this claim to the other parent if said release is in writing.

            '(d) Annual Registration- In order to receive the family consumption allowance provided by section 301, a qualified family must register with the sales tax administering authority in a form prescribed by the Secretary. The annual registration form shall provide--

                        '(1) the name of each family member who shared the qualified family's residence on the family determination date,

                        '(2) the Social Security number of each family member on the family determination date who shared the qualified family's residence on the family determination date,

                        '(3) the family member or family members to whom the family consumption allowance should be paid,

                        '(4) a certification that all listed family members are lawful residents of the United States,

                        '(5) a certification that all family members sharing the common residence are listed,

                        '(6) a certification that no family members were incarcerated on the family determination date (within the meaning of subsection (l)), and

                        '(7) the address of the qualified family.

            Said registration shall be signed by all members of the qualified family that have attained the age of 21 years as of the date of filing.

            '(e) Registration Not Mandatory- Registration is not mandatory for any qualified family.

            '(f) Effect of Failure To Provide Annual Registration- Any qualified family that fails to register in accordance with this section within 30 days of the family determination date, shall cease receiving the monthly family consumption allowance in the month beginning 90 days after the family determination date.

            '(g) Effect of Curing Failure To Provide Annual Registration- Any qualified family that failed to timely make its annual registration in accordance with this section but subsequently cures its failure to register, shall be entitled to up to 6 months of lapsed sales tax rebate payments. No interest on lapsed payment amount shall be paid.

            '(h) Effective Date of Annual Registrations- Annual registrations shall take effect for the month beginning 90 days after the family registration date.

            '(i) Effective Date of Revised Registrations- A revised registration made pursuant to section 305 shall take effect for the first month beginning 60 days after the revised registration was filed. The existing registration shall remain in effect until the effective date of the revised registration.

            '(j) Determination of Registration Filing Date- An annual or revised registration shall be deemed filed when--

                        '(1) deposited in the United States mail, postage prepaid, to the address of the sales tax administering authority;

                        '(2) delivered and accepted at the offices of the sales tax administering authority; or

                        '(3) provided to a designated commercial private courier service for delivery within 2 days to the sales tax administering authority at the address of the sales tax administering authority.

            '(k) Proposed Registration To Be Provided- 30 or more days before the family registration date, the sales tax administering authority shall mail to the address shown on the most recent rebate registration or change of address notice filed pursuant to section 305(d) a proposed registration that may be simply signed by the appropriate family members if family circumstances have not changed.

            '(l) Incarcerated Individuals- An individual shall not be eligible under this chapter to be included as a member of any qualified family if that individual--

                        '(1) is in

Thomas Babington Macaulay, 1841 says it all: (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27616929)

"I am so sensible, Sir, of the kindness with which the House has listened to me, that I will not detain you longer. I will only say this, that if the measure before us should pass, and should produce one-tenth part of the evil which it is calculated to produce, and which I fully expect it to produce, there will soon be a remedy, though of a very objectionable kind. Just as the absurd acts which prohibited the sale of game were virtually repealed by the poacher, just as many absurd revenue acts have been virtually repealed by the smuggler, so will this law be virtually repealed by piratical booksellers. At present the holder of copyright has the public feeling on his side. Those who invade copyright are regarded as knaves who take the bread out of the mouths of deserving men. Rob Malda is a blatant homosexual cock-sucking bastard. Everybody is well pleased to see them restrained by the law, and compelled to refund their ill-gotten gains. No tradesman of good repute will have anything to do with such disgraceful transactions. Pass this law: and that feeling is at an end. Men very different from the present race of piratical booksellers will soon infringe this intolerable monopoly. Great masses of capital will be constantly employed in the violation of the law. Every art will be employed to evade legal pursuit; and the whole nation will be in the plot. On which side indeed should the public sympathy be when the question is whether some book as popular as Robinson Crusoe, or the Pilgrim's Progress, shall be in every cottage, or whether it shall be confined to the libraries of the rich for the advantage of the great-grandson of a bookseller who, a hundred years before, drove a hard bargain for the copyright with the author when in great distress? Remember too that, when once it ceases to be considered as wrong and discreditable to invade literary property, no person can say where the invasion will stop. The public seldom makes nice distinctions. The wholesome copyright which now exists will share in the disgrace and danger of the new copyright which you are about to create. And you will find that, in attempting to impose unreasonable restraints on the reprinting of the works of the dead, you have, to a great extent, annulled those restraints which now prevent men from pillaging and defrauding the living. If I saw, Sir, any probability that this bill could be so amended in the Committee that my objections might be removed, I would not divide the House in this stage. But I am so fully convinced that no alteration which would not seem insupportable to my honourable and learned friend, could render his measure supportable to me, that I must move, though with regret, that this bill be read a second time this day six months."

-Dan East

Re:Thomas Babington Macaulay, 1841 says it all: (-1, Redundant)

Spazztastic (814296) | more than 5 years ago | (#27617493)

"I don't want to read a wall of text so I'm assuming it's a troll."

- Metamoderators

Re:Thomas Babington Macaulay, 1841 says it all: (1)

Camann (1486759) | more than 5 years ago | (#27617763)

Rob Malda is a blatant homosexual cock-sucking bastard.

Did you read it?

Re:Thomas Babington Macaulay, 1841 says it all: (1)

Devout_IPUite (1284636) | more than 5 years ago | (#27617865)

Who is Rob Malda?

Re:Thomas Babington Macaulay, 1841 says it all: (1)

Jaysyn (203771) | more than 5 years ago | (#27618029)

H.N.(erd)I.C. of Slashdot

ATTN mods: parent is a troll (0, Troll)

RAMMS+EIN (578166) | more than 5 years ago | (#27617509)

Quoth the parent:

``Those who invade copyright are regarded as knaves who take the bread out of the mouths of deserving men. Rob Malda is a blatant homosexual cock-sucking bastard. Everybody is well pleased ...''

Re:ATTN mods: parent is a troll (1)

Spazztastic (814296) | more than 5 years ago | (#27617545)

Shit, I'm bad at proofreading. Oh well, I have karma to burn.

Re:ATTN mods: parent is a troll (1)

courseofhumanevents (1168415) | more than 5 years ago | (#27617629)

"I don't want to read a wall of text so I'm assuming the mods didn't want to read a wall of text and assumed it was a troll." - Spazztastic

Re:ATTN mods: parent is a troll (1)

Spazztastic (814296) | more than 5 years ago | (#27617685)

Pretty much. I can't really disagree with that. Reading a wall of text is a pain in the ass and I lost my place three times.

Oh well, mod me down.

Re:Thomas Babington Macaulay, 1841 says it all: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27617549)

Interesting. But it would be much better off without the inserted phrase(s) slamming Rob Malda. Removing said phrase(s) does show that people have been against copyright extensions for a very long time.

Thomas Babington Macaulay, uncorrupted (5, Interesting)

chkn0 (773790) | more than 5 years ago | (#27618985)

Thomas Babington Macaulay's speech in the House of Commons, 5 February 1841 on the obscene extension of the term of copyright protections:

"I am so sensible, sir, of the kindness with which the House has listened to me, that I will not detain you longer. I will only say this, that if the measure before us should pass, and should produce one tenth part of the evil which it is calculated to produce, and which I fully expect it to produce, there will soon be a remedy, though of a very objectionable kind. Just as the absurd acts which prohibited the sale of game were virtually repealed by the poacher, just as many absurd revenue acts have been virtually repealed by the smuggler, so will this law be virtually repealed by piratical booksellers.

At present, the holder of copyright has the public feeling on his side. Those who invade copyright are regarded as knaves who take the bread out of the mouths of deserving men. Everybody is well pleased to see them restrained by the law, and compelled to refund their ill-gotten gains. No tradesmen of good repute will have anything to do with such disgraceful transactions. Pass this law, and that feeling is at an end. Men very different from the present race of piratical booksellers will soon infringe this intolerable monopoly. Great masses of capital will be constantly employed in the violation of the law. Every art will be employed to evade legal pursuit; and the whole nation will be in the plot.

On which side, indeed, should the public sympathy be when the question is, whether some book as popular as 'Robinson Crusoe,' or 'The Pilgrim's Progress,' shall be in every cottage, or whether it shall be confined to the libraries of the rich for the advantage of the great-grandson of a bookseller, who, a hundred years before, drove a hard bargain for the copyright with the author when in great distress?

Remember, too, that, when once it ceases to be considered as wrong and discreditable to invade literary property, no person can say where the invasion will stop. The public seldom makes nice distinctions. The wholesome copyright which now exists will share in the disgrace and danger of the new copyright which you are about to create. And you will find, that, in attempting to impose unreasonable restraints on the reprinting of the works of the dead, you have, to a great extent, annulled those restraints which now prevent men from pillaging and defrauding the living."

Need to make it clear (1, Insightful)

brian0918 (638904) | more than 5 years ago | (#27617017)

I'm fine with showing companies how idiotic their rules are, how they're destroying their own business, driving away their customers and fans, etc, all out of some irrational fear of the internet. I'm also opposed to the kind of public-private partnership that has become all too common from the recording/film industry, from which we get excessive fines based on little or no evidence.

What I'd like to make clear, though, is that I fully oppose those people who would like to take it a step too far, and claim that there's no such thing as intellectual property, no property rights, that people don't have the right to the product of their own ideas, etc. It's one thing to identify and rage against politicians bought by the RIAA, and it's quite another thing to then influence politicians to pass laws that trample on everyone's rights. Take the high road and support individual rights across the board, and reject government intervention in the economy. It doesn't have to be dog-eat-dog.

Re:Need to make it clear (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27617159)

how do you propose 'protecting intellectual property' at the same time you 'reject government intervention in the economy'?

Re:Need to make it clear (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27617217)

With the 2nd amendment, of course!

Re:Need to make it clear (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27617317)

And just how will a well-regulated state militia protect your rights when you live in Wyoming and the IP thief is in New York?

Re:Need to make it clear (4, Funny)

TinBromide (921574) | more than 5 years ago | (#27617427)

Lets invade New York, I never liked them anyway.

Re:Need to make it clear (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27617649)

Invade New York? Only if we go in with a solemn promise to not try and rebuild them into a productive member of the US.

But we could certainly "liberate" the 41000 folks who pay over 50% of NYC's income taxes. They would be sure to thank us once they realized just how much more of their own money they could keep living in a major city that does not have any income taxes. And also how many more people they could hire to work for them in places with a drastically lower cost of living. Why if they had even a mere 200 middle class peons/brown-nosers on their NY payroll they could easliy hire 300 in a city like Dallas for the same overall payroll costs.

Re:Need to make it clear (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27617739)

Why if they had even a mere 200 middle class peons/brown-nosers on their NY payroll they could easliy hire 300 in a city like Dallas for the same overall payroll costs.

And the ones in Dallas would be genuinely nice and polite instead of being pure brown nosers.

Re:Need to make it clear (1)

Voyager529 (1363959) | more than 5 years ago | (#27618241)

I LIVE in New York, you insensitive clod!

Re:Need to make it clear (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27618813)

Get out while you still can ;)

Re:Need to make it clear (3, Interesting)

brian0918 (638904) | more than 5 years ago | (#27617329)

how do you propose 'protecting intellectual property' at the same time you 'reject government intervention in the economy'?

You're equivocating. I'm not opposed to all government, just improper government. The proper role of government is reflected in the courts, police, and military, in the protection of those rights that are necessary for individuals to live and pursue their values and goals. So if you try to attack me, you are violating my rights, and the government - which has a monopoly on force - should intervene and go after you. If I plagiarize your book, steal your invention blueprints, take credit for it, or otherwise distribute your written thoughts without your consent or the consent of whomever you have sold your thoughts to, then I have violated your rights and the government should go after me.

What I mean by "government intervention of the economy" is precisely force-backed rights violations. The government has a monopoly on force, so only they could get away with forcing anyone to do anything - there's no higher power to which they must answer. A company or crony who buys a political vote that benefits them and violates the rights of others, or even if it benefits others and violates their rights, is force-backed rights violation.

Taking credit is not copyright infringement (4, Interesting)

Geof (153857) | more than 5 years ago | (#27617827)

If I plagiarize your book. . . [or] take credit for it then I have violated your rights and the government should go after me.

Funny thing. In the U.S. at least, taking credit for someone else's work is not a copyright infringement. Fraud perhaps, dishonest yes, but copyright no. Nor, as economist David Levine argues, should there be a special law for that: private law is fully up to the task, even harsher than anything the government might do. If you are a tenured academic (his example) or a journalist and you plagiarize, you could be out of a job. If you commit fraud, there's a law for that. If you lie persistently, it reflects on your character. Sure, lies can do tremendous harm. Think of how much damage they can do in romantic relationships. But we don't have laws for that. We shouldn't. The honest truth is that copyright (all of it in the U.S., 99.9% of in jurisdictions that respect moral rights) is about money. Preventing plagiarism is a totally bogus argument for copyright.

Re:Taking credit is not copyright infringement (1)

langelgjm (860756) | more than 5 years ago | (#27618071)

If you are a tenured academic (his example) or a journalist and you plagiarize, you could be out of a job.

Tenured! Not even tenured. Imagine you're a junior professor, and it's found you've plagiarized. Good luck ever getting tenure anywhere.

Copyright and plagiarism have nothing to do with each other.

Re:Taking credit is not copyright infringement (2, Informative)

brian0918 (638904) | more than 5 years ago | (#27619111)

Funny thing. In the U.S. at least, taking credit for someone else's work is not a copyright infringement.

Did I say it was? They are all violations of property rights - that is what unites them. Whether it's fraud or copyright infringement is irrelevant to the question of whether it violates rights and should be prosecuted.

Re:Need to make it clear (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27617177)

What I'd like to make clear, though, is that I fully oppose those people who would like to take it a step too far, and claim that there's no such thing as intellectual property, no property rights, that people don't have the right to the product of their own ideas, etc.

Bullshit! I have a 15-year-old, and neither he nor any of his generation seem to have any concept of digital copyright. The content industry has entirely failed at educating the masses, and their ultimate demise is completely assured. You can't put 90% or even 30% of the people in jail. We learned that during prohibition. If everyone is breaking the law, the law must be struck down. Same thing with marijuana. Same damn fucking thing.

Sorry, Brian but you will fail under the weight of the masses. Fuck you, sir!

-Dan East

Re:Need to make it clear (1)

denis-The-menace (471988) | more than 5 years ago | (#27617363)

For better or worst, it seems that there is a coming rebellion against copyright. The system as it stands today is holding all creative works produced since 1923(or so) hostage for the betterment of a few rich and powerful people.

If this rebellion against copyright comes to pass, nobody will create anything as polished as what we see and hear today. The music industry will look like the one in China where artist make the most of their income on stage and not in a studio. The movie industry, however, will be unrecognizable compared to today.

Participation and contribution over quality (4, Insightful)

Geof (153857) | more than 5 years ago | (#27618041)

If this rebellion against copyright comes to pass, nobody will create anything as polished as what we see and hear today.

If this were true (I don't know that it would be), how bad would that be? In other words, how important is it that our entertainment be polished?

I'm not going to make the full argument here, but I'll throw out some thoughts.

The pyramids are great works of architecture. Wonders of the world. But we don't build them anymore. The cost is not worth the benefit. (As it happens, one of those costs was slave labor.)

I love television. I prefer good TV shows to good movies. Has TV made the world a better place? Research strongly points to television as a reason for a collapse in social and political participation since the 1960s. There's no question of abolishing television, but should we step in and enforce onerous regulations in order to preserve it as it is?

What is better: listening to highly polished music, or learning to make music and playing for your friends? We used to *do* culture instead of simply observing it. Most people could sing or play an instrument. Many more played sports. Drawing was a basic skill for educated people. But we were not professional artists. We were not usually able to both compose the song *and* sing it. We drew on the culture around us, and transformed it to enrich our lives. Now our entertainment is provided to us, and for the most part we don't contribute. Copyright as it stands entrenches that passive role because wit forbids us from most forms of participation - particularly when we use the everyday digital media and technology through which we live our lives and connect with the people we care about.

Re:Participation and contribution over quality (0, Troll)

Tanktalus (794810) | more than 5 years ago | (#27618329)

We were not usually able to both compose the song *and* sing it. We drew on the culture around us, and transformed it to enrich our lives. Now our entertainment is provided to us, and for the most part we don't contribute.

It's nice to know that some people are encouraging us to compose and sing again, contributing back to our culture. Oh, I suppose American Idol was precisely what you were talking about. Woops, nevermind. :-P

Re:Participation and contribution over quality (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27619417)

I think music is a bad example here because small bands are rather common. Organizing to make your own music -- even with high production values -- is really not outside of the reach of the common person. TV and movies take a lot more people, a lot of whom are not in star positions. I do not necessarily disagree with you, just you have chosen a bad example for your argument.

Re:Need to make it clear (3, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 5 years ago | (#27618079)

If this rebellion against copyright comes to pass, nobody will create anything as polished as what we see and hear today. The music industry will look like the one in China where artist make the most of their income on stage and not in a studio.

Which is pretty much how musicians have made a living for thousands of years. The brief period in which a musician could become a multimillionaire because of a peculiar alignment of recording and playback technologies and a rather clever distribution and marketing system are gone. It was good (for some) while it lasted, but it's toast, and sending TPB's founders to jail and taking college students to court won't make it come back.

The movie industry, however, will be unrecognizable compared to today.

That's the one that's going to be interesting. Technologies are going to allow movies to be made cheaper, but no matter what way you cut it, even a low-end Indie film is a multimillion dollar enterprise. The only thing that might save it, in my view, is the movie theater itself. I have to admit that, at least for some kinds of film, experiencing a movie as a group of people is significantly different than sitting in your livingroom watching it on DVD.

Re:Need to make it clear (2, Informative)

Alzheimers (467217) | more than 5 years ago | (#27619409)

Clerks [wikipedia.org] which had been shot for US$27,575 in the convenience store where director Kevin Smith worked, grossed over US$3 million in theaters, launching Smith's career and reinvigorating the field of independent films.

Pi [wikipedia.org] had a low budget ($60,000), but proved a financial success at the box office ($3.2 million gross in the U.S.) despite only a limited release to theaters. It has sold steadily on DVD.

Re:Need to make it clear (3, Insightful)

Vancorps (746090) | more than 5 years ago | (#27618167)

Given the state of chinese films I tend to wonder where you get your ideas from? I've seen some that were every bit as polished. Take Hero for one.

People will continue to create polished works regardless due to pride in their work and the reality that you can do a lot more with less now than you used to be able to. You can create studio quality sound at home for only a couple of thousand dollars now compared to hundreds of thousands for a professional recording studio. A lot of the extras are simply unnecessary now especially given that the vast majority of listeners aren't listening to your work on multi-thousand dollar stereo systems.

If you cut the cost of production from a couple of million dollars to a couple of thousand then you now do not need to charge anywhere near as much for your music. In fact, the costs would be so much lower that you could make a very good living touring and selling merchandise. Of course a lot of middle-men wouldn't be happy with that.

Why should consumers suffer high prices for content when the option exists that allows them an easy path? Combine that with the very unfriendly practices of the past, refusals to replace scratched or broken cds for instance and its no wonder people have no problems copying music from someone that did run the risk of paying for a CD which may or may not have had some form of malware on it.

Re:Need to make it clear (-1, Troll)

WinPimp2K (301497) | more than 5 years ago | (#27617447)

I have a 15-year-old, and neither he nor any of his generation seem to have any concept of digital copyright. The content industry has entirely failed at educating the masses

Right, it is the fault of the "content industry" that you have been too busy dropping "F-bombs" to be bothered with teaching your misbegotten byblow to have respect for others. Your weed-addled brain has utterly failed under the weight of parenting. I will not "F" you sir or madam as that is how more uncivilized drugged up parasitical barbarians are brought into the world.

Re:Need to make it clear (4, Insightful)

foobsr (693224) | more than 5 years ago | (#27619431)

You can't put 90% or even 30% of the people in jail

You can make the country a jail.

CC.

Re:Need to make it clear (3, Interesting)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 5 years ago | (#27617211)

What I'd like to make clear, though, is that I fully oppose those people who would like to take it a step too far ...

Ok, that's fair for you to have an opinion like that. I think right now you just need to take baby steps and get everyone on all sides to agree that the system is broken. While the majority of us are saying that, the RIAA/MPAA/BSA/Lawyers are still in a stubborn mule state. Which is fine because the longer they put off overhauling the system, the longer it hurts them and they lose ground to be seen as a rational actor we can work with to adapt to the changes that this magical internet has brought about.

That said, I will make the prediction for the future of Copyright: It will only get longer. It will only take longer for works to enter public domain and it will only get worse for the majority of the population. This has been true historically (Mickey Mouse Act, Sonny Bono, etc) and it will continue to be true. Where is our voice (public and public domain) represented in this process? The lobbyists run congress unopposed and hilarious lawsuits spring up routinely. It ain't a platform or election issue for the politicians so they don't care.

I'm not saying there is no such thing as intellectual property. I am saying that there are special classes of intellectual property like software and music that the law needs to adapt to. With the advent of the internet, this change must come more now than ever. We're about a full decade late in preparing the law for this wonderful technology.

When will you be able to sing Happy Birthday and White Christmas with your family publicly?

Re:Need to make it clear (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27617539)

I hate to break this to you, eldavojohn, you happy-go-lucky sweet-sounding son, but a creative work is said to be in the public domain if there are no laws which restrict its use by the public at large. For instance, a work may be in the public domain if no laws establish proprietary rights over the work, or if the work or its subject matter are specifically excluded from existing laws. Do you understand?

Because proprietary rights are founded in national laws, an item may be public domain in one jurisdiction but not another. For instance, some works of literature are public domain in the United States but not in the European Union and vice versa. The underlying idea that is expressed or manifested in the creation of a work generally cannot be the subject of copyright law. Do you understand?

Works created before the existence of copyright and patent laws also form part of the public domain. The Bible and the inventions of Archimedes are in the public domain. However, copyright may exist in translations or new formulations of these works. Same thing viz-a-vie Happy Birthday. Do you understand?

Although "intellectual property" laws are not designed to prevent facts from entering the public domain, collections of facts organized or presented in a creative way, such as categorized lists, may be copyrighted. Collections of data with intuitive organization, such as alphabetized directories like telephone directories, are generally not copyrightable. Do you understand?

In some countries copyright-like rights are granted for databases, even those containing mere facts. Works of the United States Government and various other governments are excluded from copyright law and may therefore be considered to be in the public domain in their respective countries. They may also be in the public domain in other countries as well. "It is axiomatic that material in the public domain is not protected by copyright, even when incorporated into a copyrighted work.

-Dan East

Re:Need to make it clear (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27617593)

Also, eldavojohn I prefer the company of men. Do you understand?

-Dan East

Re:Need to make it clear (1)

gaspyy (514539) | more than 5 years ago | (#27617783)

The problem as I see it is the radicalization process of everyone's stance.

On one hand we have absurdly long copyright lengths, DRM and a total disregard of fair use. On the other hand, so many people expect to get anything and everything for free.

Ideally, content producers (big and small) should realize that restrictions upon restrictions alienate their users, while users would understand that it's unrealistic to expect all things to be free.

I'm not holding by breath for this to happen.

Re:Need to make it clear (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27619251)

I disagree with a number of your points, so much so that I am posting anonymously. We are in the midst of a revolution. Not a revolution with soldiers and guns, but a revolution much like the one that occurred from AD 1400-1500 after the invention of the printing press. The PPress made copies cheap, easy, and affordable once you paid the upfront costs. We can now copy "anything", with minimal cost and effort, regardless of whether we possess a copy (remotely) for the up front cost of a PC, which is basically free if you try hard enough.

Add new technologies into the mix, such as freenet, and you have a truly anonymous exchange of any information you can imagine (setting aside the Alice bots on frost and some of the performance shortcomings). I now have access to any public information I want. Any game, any movie, any song. I have access to propeganda that is restricted in my country. I can openly, publicly, and anonymously discuss botanical remedies for the aphids attempting to bogart my buds. Anything goes, and it's really fun and interesting to watch humans behave when unencumbered.

The funny thing is, we've already had this revolution (in 1400). Industry has spent the last 100 years undoing the results, and now we're at a point where technology is allowing us to take it back.

Re:Need to make it clear (5, Insightful)

nine-times (778537) | more than 5 years ago | (#27617457)

I'm not sure whether we're quite on the same page (we might be). It's not that "intellectual property" isn't a useful idea, but that it was never intended to control what happened to your ideas when they went out into the world. Owning the copyright on a book wasn't intended to control who read your book, or whether that book could be lent or shared among friends. It was intended to allow you to prevent other commercial publishers from profiting from your work without paying you.

It's also noteworthy that in the US, the government is only granted the power to give copyrights for the sake of promoting the "useful arts", and traditionally there has been the concept that copyrights were only applicable for a limited time before the work become public property. In fact, the concept was that the intellectual property would become public by default, and that copyrights were an additional reward that the public was willing to grant for the sake of encouraging and promoting the work.

I think we have to start from that foundation. From there we can ask, "Given this new age of ubiquitous information, what kinds of temporary rights is the public willing to part with for the sake of encouraging artistic work?" It should not start from believing that people have an inalienable human right to control the destiny of every thought that happens to pass through their heads.

Re:Need to make it clear (1)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 5 years ago | (#27617715)

I wish I had mod points right now. You make an excellent case for what I believe. There should be copyright for a limited amount of time (at most the life of the author or 25 years, whichever is longer. But the essentially perpetual copyright we have today is ridiculous. It is time for the Walt Disney corporation to find a new cash cow other than Mickey Mouse.

Re:Need to make it clear (1)

Alzheimers (467217) | more than 5 years ago | (#27619443)

They did, it's called Pixar.

Re:Need to make it clear (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27617505)

It doesn't have to be dog-eat-dog.

But I'm an old person in Korea you insensitive clod!

Copyright not meant as individual property right (5, Insightful)

Geof (153857) | more than 5 years ago | (#27617699)

I fully oppose those people who would like to take it a step too far, and claim that there's no such thing as intellectual property, no property rights, that people don't have the right to the product of their own ideas

Copyright was created as a monopoly privilege, not a property right. In recent years maximalists have waged an ideological campaign to redefine copyright. The individual property rights position is radical. In the U.S., it is also well outside what the constitution allows: copyright is a regime intended to further the public interest (advancement of arts and sciences), *not* preserve or create some kind of individual rights. That individual "moral rights" approach is from the European (particularly French) tradition, and has been rejected by the United States. Lawrence Lessig (who is quite moderate) asserts that the only justification for copyright is the creation of works that would not otherwise exist.

You can talk about the foundation of copyright in moral rights in theory, but in practice it is almost never used for anything other than economic gain: and in fact promotes control and consolidation by media companies to the exclusion of all others - including artists.

It wasn't until quite recently (the 19th-20th centuries) that the idea of moral rights and individual originality even made sense. Many cultures still don't recognize it. It's a product of a particular culture at a particular moment in history. In practice, it creates all sorts of inconsistencies. It's a romantic notion that has very little to do with how creativity actually operates. It's interpretation and fleshing-out by courts has led to extremely weird and contradictory outcomes. For example, a doctor can patent your genes without your consent because he is the "creator" of his discovery. I can film people being shot in a demonstration, and *I* own the images - they have no right to them. But if those people are performing theater, all of a sudden copyright steps in. Copyright demands hard boundaries between what is "mine" and what is "yours", when no such hard boundaries really exist. Governments can create laws and call them "rights", but they are legal fictions, not reflections of some preexisting reality.

Re:Need to make it clear (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27617717)

Intellectual property is unnatural. There is no natural right to control ideas, only physical property. However, it is useful to society for you to be able to profit from your creations, as a means of encouraging more creations, and so the US Constitution gives the government the power to grant people this control for a limited time.

Notice this is granted because it is useful to let people have this control. If a creation either does not encourage more creations (junior is living on the residuals of daddy's music) or does not revert to the public domain eventually, it ceases to be useful.

Re:Need to make it clear (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27617835)

Take the high road and support individual rights across the board, and reject government intervention in the economy.

All copyright legislation is obviously government intervention in the economy. I absolutely support your individual rights to profit from any ideas you may have. I don't support your right to prevent others from exercising their own rights, simply because you had a similar idea first.

Copyright is a government-granted monopoly. That is the ultimate government intervention.

Re:Need to make it clear (2, Interesting)

SleepingWaterBear (1152169) | more than 5 years ago | (#27618035)

First I'd like to say that for the most part I agree with your stance. Copyright and patents exist for a reason, and the reason isn't obsolete just yet. That said, I agree with the people who say that intellectual property doesn't exist.

There is no intrinsic reason that people should be granted an exclusive right to the use of ideas they come up with, and claiming otherwise is basically equivalent to claiming that because a law exists, it is incorrect to try to change it. Rather, IP law exists because it provides a net benefit to society by encouraging creation and innovation. It comes with the negative effects of slowing the spread of new ideas, and of having associated legal costs for the enforcement. The question of setting copyright law for a given area comes down to deciding if the benefit in increased innovation is greater than the costs.

The recording industry is an example of copyright gone wrong. The benefit to society is rather small; the vast majority of artists make their money primarily from live performances, and would still make that music if they couldn't sell CDs. In fact, I'm reasonably confident that most artists would continue to make cds and give them away for free for the publicity. On the flip side, the cost in terms of legal enforcement, and complications about what you can and cant do with music is rather large. Clearly the law isn't serving it's purpose in this case.

Wow, thanks mods! (1)

brian0918 (638904) | more than 5 years ago | (#27619053)

Wow, I went from nil to +5 and back to nil in no time. Thanks! :)

(Next time bring an argument and leave the emotions at the door.)

Copyright Rules (1)

ideasbyeric (1534983) | more than 5 years ago | (#27617249)

Whether or not one agrees with the rights that copyright holders are granted today it is imperative that one realizes the idiocy of killing the Internet to enforce those rules.

I think that is the key question that will limit the right of copyright holders.

Re:Copyright Rules (2, Insightful)

russotto (537200) | more than 5 years ago | (#27618491)

Whether or not one agrees with the rights that copyright holders are granted today it is imperative that one realizes the idiocy of killing the Internet to enforce those rules.

The Internet -- a vast entity based largely on copying data without regard to its content -- is not compatible with copyright as we know it today.

Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker (4, Interesting)

TerraFrost (611855) | more than 5 years ago | (#27617277)

Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker [wikipedia.org] held that "a ratio of no more than one-to-one between compensatory and punitive damages is generally appropriate in maritime cases". In other words, punitive damages cannot exceed compensatory damages. If this were applied to copyright infringement, it would mean that the most any record label could collect per infringing song would be $2.00. $1.00 since that's how much it could be bought off of iTunes, or something, and another $1.00 for punitive damages.

Re:Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 5 years ago | (#27617591)

It isn't terribly clear that possession is infringement. It certainly isn't the only form of infringement. For example, distribution, at a minimum, should be roughly equally as prevalent as possession. In that case, it isn't the song, but the number of times the song was distributed.

Re:Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker (2, Interesting)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 5 years ago | (#27618039)

If this were applied to copyright infringement, it would mean that the most any record label could collect per infringing song would be $2.00.

I'm not sure that is true. Even that price makes the assumption that the amount lost when someone gets a song for free is the retail price of that song, but the assumption that the user would ever pay the full retail price is a mistaken one in many cases. In addition, there are two possible sources of damages when p2p is involved, both the receiving of the file (which in this case you appear to be arguing is equivalent to causing damages equal to the retail price of the track) and the distribution to another user, which is itself [potentially] a crime. Thus the formula would have to involve the percentage of the file transferred to other users, which could reasonably exceed 100%.

To my mind, the logical counterargument (which might or might not be useful in court, IANAL etc.) is that someone who will download the song will not necessarily pay for the song. They might well do without instead, not least because they might in fact not have enough money to purchase it (especially if they spent all their money on a computer and internet access.) :)

Re:Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker (1)

spartacus_prime (861925) | more than 5 years ago | (#27618179)

I believe the precedent in that case only held for cases involving federal maritime claims. What I learned was that, as a general rule, punitive damages should not exceed a 9-to-1 ratio over compensatory damages, but that of course depends on dozens of factors regarding defendant's conduct.

Re:Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker (1)

russotto (537200) | more than 5 years ago | (#27618313)

Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker held that "a ratio of no more than one-to-one between compensatory and punitive damages is generally appropriate in maritime cases". In other words, punitive damages cannot exceed compensatory damages.

Not applicable, even considering that this isn't maritime law. The obnoxious statutory damages aren't intended as punitive, they are intended as compensatory. (They aren't, but that's another matter)

Re:Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker (2, Funny)

noidentity (188756) | more than 5 years ago | (#27618353)

Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker held that "a ratio of no more than one-to-one between compensatory and punitive damages is generally appropriate in maritime cases". In other words, punitive damages cannot exceed compensatory damages. If this were applied to copyright infringement[...]

Copyright infringement? This clearly applies to all acts of piracy, both on and off sea!

Copyright Law (5, Insightful)

JCSoRocks (1142053) | more than 5 years ago | (#27617289)

This is just another example of how the citizens have completely lost control of their government. Elected officials no longer see themselves as being responsible to the electorate but to the corporations that fund their campaigns and posh trips. This crap needs to end. Is there anyone outside of CEOs that really agrees with the sort of copyright policy we currently have? The laws need to reflect the people's wishes rather than the politician's corporate sponsors.

Re:Copyright Law (1)

Dotren (1449427) | more than 5 years ago | (#27617565)

This is just another example of how the citizens have completely lost control of their government. Elected officials no longer see themselves as being responsible to the electorate but to the corporations that fund their campaigns and posh trips. This crap needs to end. Is there anyone outside of CEOs that really agrees with the sort of copyright policy we currently have? The laws need to reflect the people's wishes rather than the politician's corporate sponsors.

Well said! The question though is: how do we change things?

There is a saying about how you don't change Washington, it changes you. Now, I'm not sure how much of Obama's campaign was about truth and how much of it was just lies he just said to get elected. I'd very much like to think he is actually going to be an instrument of change, however, he IS a politician after all. Assuming for a moment he was sincere with his campaign promises, is it even possible for one man, even the president, to change how Washington works?

The problem, I think, is that the Federal government has grown to the point where it's almost a living organism in that you can't just change small parts of it. The rest of it will eventually just exert it's influence over the changed parts or simply reject it and cut it loose.

Re:Copyright Law (1)

JCSoRocks (1142053) | more than 5 years ago | (#27617973)

That's that sad conundrum. Unfortunately, I don't have any simple answers either. I suppose the most obvious start is to completely remove the ability of corporations to benefit politicians in any way. No corporate campaign donations, no make believe consulting positions, no all expenses paid trips, etc.

Politicians will follow the money. Once we've made it impossible for them to get the majority of their money by pandering to companies they'll have no choice but to come to us.

We need to bring back the idea of public service. Politicians make plenty of money off of the taxpayers already. They don't need to be allowed to have fake jobs at huge companies so they can get kickbacks.

Re:Copyright Law (2, Funny)

Voyager529 (1363959) | more than 5 years ago | (#27618383)

There is a saying about how you don't change Washington, it changes you.

So then in Soviet Russia, do you change Soviet Russia?

Re:Copyright Law (1)

RAMMS+EIN (578166) | more than 5 years ago | (#27617601)

``Is there anyone outside of CEOs that really agrees with the sort of copyright policy we currently have?''

I bet there are some lawyers who enjoy the current law.

Re:Copyright Law (1)

castironpigeon (1056188) | more than 5 years ago | (#27618475)

This crap needs to end.

So end it.

Re:Copyright Law (1)

evilviper (135110) | more than 5 years ago | (#27618987)

Elected officials no longer see themselves as being responsible to the electorate but to the corporations that fund their campaigns and posh trips.

Ranting and raving is always nice, but tell me this: When in history has this NOT been the case?

Politicians, have always had their big-money and big-influence supporters they try hard to please. In fact today is nothing compared to the early 20th century, when all the Rockefellers and Carnegies came around.

This is nothing new and hardly surprising (5, Interesting)

Weaselmancer (533834) | more than 5 years ago | (#27617365)

Any time there is a broad new (read that as "poorly worded") piece of law drafted people always use it to the poorly worded maximum.

No knock warrants were originally to "fight terrorism" - now they're used as a judicial shortcut to bust drug dealers. Often times with horrific results. [google.com]

Forfeiture laws were originally to return the goods from a crime to their rightful owners. Now, it's a cash grab by the government. [fear.org] They actually find property guilty. Or sometimes not even that much. [chicagotribune.com] Then they find the property (not the person carrying it, mind you) guilty and keep it. [npr.org]

Now we have the DMCA, which is being used to stifle competition and strangle free speech. [cmu.edu]

Why is anybody surprised?

We had precedents of poorly worded laws and what happens when we pass them into law. But when it's the government that benefits, it's hard to convince them to stop.

Re:This is nothing new and hardly surprising (1)

Efreet (246368) | more than 5 years ago | (#27618965)

While I agree with a good bit of what you said there, you have one thing reversed. While no knock warrants and such mainly entered the public conciousness with the Patriot act, they had been on the books and been used for quite a while before that in drug policing. I suppose democrats, who do most of the worrying about civil liberties, were less inclined to worry when there was a democrat in the White House.

Simple, Elegant, Fair Solution (2, Insightful)

srussia (884021) | more than 5 years ago | (#27617401)

Repeal Copyright.

Let's get back to the beginning. (5, Interesting)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 5 years ago | (#27617459)

Copyright was only introduced to allow authors to profit from their work for a LIMITED AMOUNT OF TIME, after that their work has to go IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN.

I don't remember for how long the works are supposed to be protected, but 20 years seems like a good compromise to me.

Lobbying used to be illegal and was called something else. Oh right, CORRUPTION.

Let's make lobbying illegal. That's one of the major problem that's screwing up what should be a self-regulating capitalist system.

Re:Let's get back to the beginning. (2, Informative)

pi_rules (123171) | more than 5 years ago | (#27617595)

Lobbying used to be illegal and was called something else. Oh right, CORRUPTION.

You don't really know what lobbying is, do you? It's not the same thing as bribery. It's quite necessary in our system too.

Re:Let's get back to the beginning. (3, Insightful)

CopaceticOpus (965603) | more than 5 years ago | (#27617757)

Lobbying, as in petitioning to make politicians aware of the needs of certain industries or groups of people, is necessary and often even good. But it needs to be disconnected from the process of financing and running election campaigns. Politicians who follow the will of lobbyists in order to help their personal campaign efforts might as well be taking bribes directly.

Re:Let's get back to the beginning. (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 5 years ago | (#27618087)

Lobbying needs to be subject to some additional restrictions, and a whole lot more openness. I would like to see an audio recording with automated transcript of everything said in the office of any elected official be made available to the general public. I don't see why they are entitled to privacy. If they want to seal portions of it in the interest of national security, so be it, but I want those records to be there for posterity so that if there is a question about why something happened or who is responsible, some light may be shed. The only thing this will really accomplish is force lobbyists to do their illegal lobbying outside the halls of government, but even that would be a small victory. In addition, since some of those officials are legally prohibited from engaging in meetings on the subject of government business in locations other than said hallowed halls, it theoretically opens the door to prosecution of some of these crooks for their illegal acts and ill-gotten gains.

We are the government. It's time we remembered that.

Re:Let's get back to the beginning. (2, Interesting)

AK Marc (707885) | more than 5 years ago | (#27618941)

You don't really know what lobbying is, do you?

Getting representatives to vote for reasons other than to represent their constituents. "Legal" lobbying is informing the representative of what his constituents are (or should be) concerned about and informing them of the issues. "Regular" lobbying is bribery to get time, bribery to buy votes, and extortion to prevent voting the other way. It's tolerated, as long as it isn't too blatantly illegal.

It's not the same thing as bribery.

Next, you'll be telling me campaign contributions aren't bribery.

It's quite necessary in our system too.

*Necessary*? I'm not sure about that. Perhaps you could explain to me the necessity of having non-constituent groups being paid to exert influence over representatives without regard to the will of the constituency, and how that improved the ability of the representative to represent the will of the constituency.

Re:Let's get back to the beginning. (1)

LadyDarkKitten (1532419) | more than 5 years ago | (#27617755)

Okay, basic copyrights work like this. Once the author creates the work the automatic copyright that is placed on the work (with out registering it with the copyright office, something you do to help protect yourself from copyright law suites but its not necessary) last for the life of the author plus 75 years. If there is more than one author then the copyright last for the life of all authors, once the lats author has died then its 75 years on top of that. Also if there is more than one author you need the permission of all living authors or the representative that the authors chose in order to use their work. That's why as an artist I'm all for the Creative Commons License. http://creativecommons.org/ [creativecommons.org]

Re:Let's get back to the beginning. (1)

squidfood (149212) | more than 5 years ago | (#27617853)

last for the life of the author plus 75 years.

Functionally unlimited compared to the past. And that's why I'm for calling anything above the 20-40 year range outright institutionalized theft from the public domain.

Re:Let's get back to the beginning. (1)

Peaker (72084) | more than 5 years ago | (#27618831)

It was 14 years with a non-automatic extension of 14 years if the author is still alive and requests it.

yuo f45il it (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27617491)

FreeBSD at about 80 been looking for! lubrication. You and easy - only So that you don't has run faster GAY NIGGERS from When I stood for USERS OF NETBSD stupid. To the a conscious stand Get how people can United States of inventing excuses BSD's codebase found out about the decentralized yes, I work for themselves to be a THINKING ABOUT IT. errors. Future I FrreBSD at about 80 continues to lose The reaper In a The 'community' need to scream that and reports and uncover a story of I don't want to visions going Usenet is roughly baby...don't fear platform for the Watershed essay, developers. The

Artists react to the PirateBay verdict (1, Interesting)

bonch (38532) | more than 5 years ago | (#27617655)

Since Slashdot is coming alive today with goofy hippies and their piracy justifications [slashdot.org] because of the PirateBay verdict, I thought it would be interesting to read the opinions of artists themselves [gearslutz.com] . You know, the people whose works you pirate and justify as a favor in the fight against the record industry. The people you speak for but never asked an opinion from. The people you're ripping off.

It's funny how different the opinions of the artists are from the selfish leeches who pirate their works. Again, these are the artists you pirates have, for years, claimed to be fighting for (don't ask me how pirating their work accomplishes that).

Some choice quotes:

Surely the copyright owners who had their property ripped off are the winners.
Why is it 'bad news'?

---

great imo!

"There has been a perception that piracy is OK and that the music industry should just have to accept it. This verdict will change that."

maybe not completely of course. but it's a start.

---

i think piracy proponents are like the 21st century's hippies.

---

This is Bloody FABULOUS News !

Dude, you're posting on a forum in which many professional artists and writers depend on the sales and returns from their music - most of which have dedicated their lives to learning, gaining talents, studying, being kicked down and struggling to get their music to the masses or to a level of professional acceptance. You are also surrounded by an even bigger group of people who want to make a career in music or music production in some form or another. Piracy via P2Ps is killing the future of many many careers and may if its left un policed make it almost impossible for careers in music to exist. I don't want a world full of thieves wrecking the oportunities for others and I don't think I'm alone in this thought either.

Grow Up !

---

thats fantastic news. Have you checked out their site? total A$$-wipes

---

what is really happening is that some people that have facilitated the theft of millions (billions?) of dollars of property have been found guilty.

---

Good news, but these bastards are good at making themselves pass for martyrs in front of people...

---

Piracy is theft - If songwriters, musicians, etc. get no money for their work there will be no good music. People have to live.

In the same way, where unscrupulous companies rip off other peoples equipment designs and have them made cheaply in the far east - it may benefit some people in the short term, but discourages anyone putting money into developing new and better products if they feel that they will not be able to get their investment back before someone rips off the design.

It all comes down to people wanting something for nothing and in the long run benefits no-one as everything goes down the pan.

Everyone deserves a fair days pay for a fair days work - piracy is just the same as stealing someones pay packet.

---

Pirate bay was promoting themselves specifically as a website for committing crime, and I bet the vast majority of their traffic was crime. The same cannot be said for google, nor most ISP's.

---
And so on...

Re:Artists react to the PirateBay verdict (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 5 years ago | (#27617749)

The plural of anecdote is not data. Greed is still a deadly sin — a statement which appeals to me on the basis of my observations and not just my upbringing in a Christian-derived society. And finally, money still can't buy me love.

Re:Artists react to the PirateBay verdict (4, Insightful)

Stiletto (12066) | more than 5 years ago | (#27617779)

If songwriters, musicians, etc. get no money for their work there will be no good music.

This opinion keeps getting repeated and repeated as if it's fact.

Re:Artists react to the PirateBay verdict (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27618225)

And you think it's untrue why?

Re:Artists react to the PirateBay verdict (2, Informative)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 5 years ago | (#27618257)

There was music and art long before copyright existed.

There is music and art created under copyleft licenses.

Re:Artists react to the PirateBay verdict (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27618575)

patronship, anyone?

Re:Artists react to the PirateBay verdict (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27618705)

patronship, anyone?

Mozart >> Britney

Patronship doesn't sound so bad.

Re:Artists react to the PirateBay verdict (3, Insightful)

aaandre (526056) | more than 5 years ago | (#27619371)

Because we are creators. Creation gives us infinite joy. We don't do it for money, we do it because we want and need to. Monetizing thoughts, imagination, art is a fairly recent development, leading to the attempt to fence the unfencable.

Take a look at the videos on this page. These people were not paid, and Kutiman, the guy who spent hundreds of hours editing, didn't get paid either.

Because you are the Creator -- Kutiman remixes [thisinspiresme.com] .

Re:Artists react to the PirateBay verdict (1)

mjeffers (61490) | more than 5 years ago | (#27618295)

There will still be music and art created. It just won't be shared with people who value it so little that they think nothing of stealing it wholesale.

Re:Artists react to the PirateBay verdict (1)

Microlith (54737) | more than 5 years ago | (#27618355)

Ok, how about this:

In a money-driven world, people who do not make money do not eat. Since there will be no money in music, fewer people will work in the production of music (all parts, not just the fatcats in the publishers.)

This eliminates the ability for people to do it as a profession, which isn't as OMG THEY'RE PROFESSIONAL THEY SUCK horrible as Slashdot would blather in your face. Just being able to focus all of ones efforts on it allows for a hell of a lot more exploration and innovation than having to debate whether or not to do it after a day's work.

Oh and this is only considering music. There's a LOT more to works that exist only due to copyright, and they'll be out in the cold completely (but that's OK, because -you- don't like it.)

Re:Artists react to the PirateBay verdict (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27618761)

I know many artists both in the fine arts and music and none of them would make any less money of copyrights were abolished. Trademarks would still matter to them, as the fine artists don't want to see fakes, but they aren't worried about copies. The musicians, like 99% of musicians make money from performances. Many I know, have their songs available for free download. Sure there's some crazy supper stars making millions from copyrights, but they aren't the norm.

Re:Artists react to the PirateBay verdict (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27618401)

If songwriters, musicians, etc. that make crappy music get no money for their work there will be no more crappy music.

there that we can hope for...

Re:Artists react to the PirateBay verdict (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 5 years ago | (#27617781)

Piracy is not theft, no property is taken. You still have your copy. Piracy is unauthorized reproduction of a work that the government has granted a monopoly on to the creator of said work.

Copyright is to encourage the creative and useful arts not some natural right. So long as copyright is defined in the current way it is theft of culture.

Re:Artists react to the PirateBay verdict (1)

Cyberax (705495) | more than 5 years ago | (#27617873)

So? Artists are often as stupid as RIAA bosses.

Besides, quite a lot of them think that they'll make $$$$$$$$$$$ from CD sales if only those pesky pirates are dealt with. And almost all of them are not willing to use alternative distribution methods.

If you read this thread, it has a lot of unproven ideas taken as facts and as much wishful thinking.

Fuck the artists. (2, Interesting)

langelgjm (860756) | more than 5 years ago | (#27617947)

Wow. Self-righteous much?

Frankly, I don't give a fuck what the artists think. The RIAA and their ilk are small potatoes, ants, compared to the worldwide effects of intellectual property.

The real money in IP is not in copyright, but in patents. Drugs, pharmaceuticals, etc. Sadly, part of the spillover effect of all these artists clamoring for their "rights" and "property" is that IP as a whole is viewed less as a utilitarian means to an end, and more as a natural, God-given right. Then trade policy, etc., start to be affected by that attitude, and all of the sudden you get lawsuits over compulsory licensing of antiretrovirals, and seizures of legitimately produced generic drugs.

Fuck the artists. IP is bigger than music and movies. It's about people's lives, and our tendency to put the profit motive before all else.

Re:Fuck the artists. (1)

nine-times (778537) | more than 5 years ago | (#27618297)

Frankly, I don't give a fuck what the artists think.

But I thought being able to play a couple chords on a guitar qualified you to write federal policy, right?!

Re:Fuck the artists. (0, Troll)

Microlith (54737) | more than 5 years ago | (#27618419)

No, but being a Slashdot poster entitles you to decree that people must accept that the end result of any investment, whether it be ten minutes and a dollar, or years and millions, must be given up for free at the expense of the investor.

Oh and fuck the investor. They're getting screwed and that's what they deserve for making an investment in, well, anything.

Re:Fuck the artists. (1)

langelgjm (860756) | more than 5 years ago | (#27618751)

No, but being a Slashdot poster entitles you to decree that people must accept that the end result of any investment, whether it be ten minutes and a dollar, or years and millions, must be given up for free at the expense of the investor.

I know you weren't replying directly to me, but for the sake of conversation, I'm not saying that.

Think about your comment, though. Current copyright law grants the same protection both the person who invests tens minutes and a dollar, and the one who invests ten years and a hundred thousand dollars. Doesn't make much sense, if you ask me.

For that matter, the same unitary patent system governs the newest wonder drug as well as an improved cheese slicer.

What I witness is a profound lack of imagination on the part of so many people who refuse to believe that incentive structures can be any different than they currently are. There are substantive, alternative proposals out there, especially in the areas where it matters most (e.g., drugs for diseases that afflict primarily developing nations).

Re:Fuck the artists. (1)

Microlith (54737) | more than 5 years ago | (#27619407)

Doesn't make much sense, if you ask me.

Of course not, but the converse is true with the arguments being made by so many pro-TPB people. Namely, that both investments should be met with (effectively) derision and an economic screw-job regardless of the quality. I guess the extremism is good, in the sense that it's equal to the hyper-IP extreme we have. Both forces may pull us back to a more reasonable center.

Re:Artists react to the PirateBay verdict (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27618137)

Uh, whatever. A) I don't pirate stuff, but I still think the Pirate Bay decision is stupid (if I provide a searchable link to something that is copyrighted, am I on the hook if some other user decides to copy the material and violate copyright? If that makes sense, then libraries are in a lot of trouble), and B) the great majority of the argument has *never* been about stiffing artists who deserve to be paid for their creative works, it has been about "how much is enough?" before artists need to pay back the support we provide them via monopoly rights enshrined in law. In other words, when do those rights expire and the work pass into the public domain? What limits are there on creator rights? What "fair use" rights does anyone have, regardless of the copyright holder's wishes. Copyright has *always* been a bargain, and has always had limits. It is supposed to be enough temporary monopoly that it is worthwhile. No more.

Therefore, if you're downloading the latest movie, I have zero sympathy for you. You should be getting it via legitimate commercial channels. Don't like the terms? Petition the creators of the work for better terms.

If, however, you're the great grandchild of some artist who put in hard work more than 50 years ago but who is still collecting money from their dead family member, or if you are a company that bought or still holds those rights, enough! I have no sympathy. Walt Disney was dead a long time ago. Elvis died a long time ago (as far as we know). It's time to let that cultural history go as a commercial exploit. Get off your lazy ass and make something new that is worthy of compensation yourself. I also have no sympathy for artists who think "fair use" doesn't exist, or who effectively eliminate the ability to exercise it because of technical security measures (DMCA-style). Copyright does NOT provide unlimited power to control creative works. It never has.

If you think that the only people who are against the current implementation of copyright are "goofy hippies", you're as deluded as the "goofy hippies" themselves who think all works should immediately be free. The much more extensive frustration in the general population as a whole is an expression of the fact -- well explained in the article -- that copyright has gone too far in favor of artist/creator's control. Much too far. And yet they still want more, and they think they can get it from legislators by stealing from the public domain with ever longer copyright terms and more draconian DMCA-style measures.

You need to get a clue. This is not a one-sided problem, and opinions are diverse. It has many facets, and the history of development of copyright is very instructive. The "everything the artists ever want, now and forever" approach is just as offensive and deluded as the other extreme. Selfish leeches aren't any better than the greedy gluttons they are latching onto who think they can stake their claim on ideas forever and in all conceivable forms.

For some historical perspective to the contrary, I recommend this speech [wikisource.org] , which you can read in full courtesy of the fact that its copyright has expired (although being the House of Commons, it might have been public domain from the start).

Re:Artists react to the PirateBay verdict (1)

night_flyer (453866) | more than 5 years ago | (#27618151)

Ive listened to some new "music" lately... considering how the music industry rapes the artists, this statement is true...

"If songwriters, musicians, etc. get no money for their work there will be no good music."

Re:Artists react to the PirateBay verdict (1)

russotto (537200) | more than 5 years ago | (#27618421)

It's funny how different the opinions of the artists are from the selfish leeches who pirate their works. Again, these are the artists you pirates have, for years, claimed to be fighting for (don't ask me how pirating their work accomplishes that).

TO me this is great news . I hope the internet will be more controlled . I would love to be able to let my kids surf the internet without having to worry about what they'll find .

why do you think google should be untouchable?

"Freedom" is a concept open to much debate, which I won't engage in with you.

Align yourself with these "artists" and you've aligned yourself with anti-freedom people who would censor the Internet and shut down Google.

Re:Artists react to the PirateBay verdict (1)

vertinox (846076) | more than 5 years ago | (#27618829)

Again, these are the artists you pirates have, for years, claimed to be fighting for (don't ask me how pirating their work accomplishes that).

I used run a small record label, but I didn't make enough to live off it by itself. That said, I don't believe the government should pay me money simply because I run a business that wasn't making money.

What you are saying is that all artists must be required by law to have other people's money to live where everyone else just has to make do with their regular 9 to 5?

I mean it sounds great for the artist, but I don't think the law should be written specifically that they get government handouts.

If that is true what about all the pimps being deprived of a living because people have sex for free?

The problem is that government is being leveraged in order to make money where otherwise there would be none. And trust me... Its not the small time artists getting any benefit from it.

And on the grand scheme of things, our priorities should be science, engineering, and medicine rather than entertainment.

Maybe we need more of that than more art in the world.

The problem (1)

omar.sahal (687649) | more than 5 years ago | (#27617793)

Unfortunately where stuck with this intellectual property nonsense. I think business is good in general, a chronic lack of wealth has a negative effect on sociality. However large corporations (I believe this started in the eighties) now think that to protect their profits they must control a market. This is done through laws that where instituted by means of lobbying, or the extension of laws to areas where they were never meant for. Its OK if there are three or so other big players, then you cant be called a monopoly and be broken up.
These people (like banks) have a short term view of things and can harm the competitiveness of the western world.
You can see this in music, with fees for sampling music. There even a role over rate involved so if an artist has success they pay more for the samples per song, which consumes most of your profit. (the four) Big companies in music are the ones who profit while every one pays out. IP also plays a apart in IT as well, with the added negative (from our view) that companies don't even have to have a strong case, you cant afford 5 million in court fees so you must settle
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>