First Prev
of 9
Next Last
Che Reagan Christ

Lodi, OH

#168 Mar 9, 2013
-The-Artist- wrote:
<quoted text>
Intellectual property is not real, it cannot be excluded like real property can.
It is not subject to property tax, that's my biggest issue. If it's real property, then it must be hit with property tax.
Life+70 is far from what was intended by the framers, and its continuous extension makes a mockery of the Constitution.
In effect, the property of Hollywood is getting a tax break that no one else gets.
No one would claim that patents should get protection that long, and copyright should not receive any protection longer than patents.
You don't know what the term "real property" means do you Karl?

“Tenured Marxist Radical”

Since: Jan 13

Ivy League-ISIS

#169 Mar 9, 2013
Carl Monday wrote:
<quoted text>
Leech.
Bob?

Is that you?

I highly doubt you are Mr. Monday, he lives in the Cleveland area, not Columbus.

If you actually are, why is your ego as big as Big Johnson's imaginairy johnson?

“Tenured Marxist Radical”

Since: Jan 13

Ivy League-ISIS

#170 Mar 9, 2013
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't know what the term "real property" means do you Karl?
My argument is that with copyright terms being extended whenever anything is at risk of expiration, it has become nearly equivalent to real property and thus should face the property tax.

Being the typical leftist, you oppose any attempt to limit Hollywood, the only business you idiots don't oppose, and the one receiving a nice tax break as its IP is given the status of real property, but not taxed as such.

“Queen of my domain”

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#171 Mar 9, 2013
-The-Artist- wrote:
<quoted text>
These debates are always combative, and we will have to agree to disagree on this one.
If I have a business, and it owns a building, property tax is paid on the building, and sometimes on inventory.
If I own a farm, I pay tax on the land and the crops.
If I own Star Wars, I am not paying tax on the comparative land where the comparative crops are grown from, even though I am paying tax on the crops.
The idea that one cannot rewrite code is disturbing and has a chilling effect upon progress of technology. The prosecutions of people modifying PS3s disgusted me.
I'm fairly versed in what the terms mean, and I am a dedicated opponent of the current system which reminds me of rent-seeking protectionism, that doesn't produce enough value to society to justify it.
Not attempting to be combative, but providing perspective from someone who is protected by my copyrights. And yes, another angle to this is when employed by someone, typical that those copyrights belong to the company, not you, for the creative works you produce under their payroll. Hence, a reporter who writes for a specific news outlet has the copyrights owned by that particular news outlet.

So I am unsure of how any of this is rent-seeking protectionism or doesn't produce any value to society. Your farm or factory produces income. Original intellectual works do as well.

“Tenured Marxist Radical”

Since: Jan 13

Ivy League-ISIS

#172 Mar 9, 2013
gokeefe wrote:
<quoted text>
Not attempting to be combative, but providing perspective from someone who is protected by my copyrights. And yes, another angle to this is when employed by someone, typical that those copyrights belong to the company, not you, for the creative works you produce under their payroll. Hence, a reporter who writes for a specific news outlet has the copyrights owned by that particular news outlet.
So I am unsure of how any of this is rent-seeking protectionism or doesn't produce any value to society. Your farm or factory produces income. Original intellectual works do as well.
IP gets a privileged status, and its term is far too long.

The RSC report on reform was excellent, but quickly silenced due to RIAA/MPAA pressure.
Che Reagan Christ

Lodi, OH

#173 Mar 9, 2013
-The-Artist- wrote:
<quoted text>
My argument is that with copyright terms being extended whenever anything is at risk of expiration, it has become nearly equivalent to real property and thus should face the property tax.
Being the typical leftist, you oppose any attempt to limit Hollywood, the only business you idiots don't oppose, and the one receiving a nice tax break as its IP is given the status of real property, but not taxed as such.
Wow. It's interesting that you divined all of that about what you think I think based on my simple observation that you are using a term, real property, in a manner that indicates that you don't know what it means.

“Tenured Marxist Radical”

Since: Jan 13

Ivy League-ISIS

#174 Mar 9, 2013
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow. It's interesting that you divined all of that about what you think I think based on my simple observation that you are using a term, real property, in a manner that indicates that you don't know what it means.
Real property, is distinct from personal property in that it cannot be moved.

Both are "tangible" and real property is normally subject to property tax, while personal is not always.

Then there is intellectual property, which by the virtual removal of the expiration limits, has acquired a status similar to real property in that it has become a fixed asset, that produces value, similar to a building, but is not subject to property tax.
Che Reagan Christ

Lodi, OH

#175 Mar 10, 2013
-The-Artist- wrote:
<quoted text>
Real property, is distinct from personal property in that it cannot be moved.
Both are "tangible" and real property is normally subject to property tax, while personal is not always.
Then there is intellectual property, which by the virtual removal of the expiration limits, has acquired a status similar to real property in that it has become a fixed asset, that produces value, similar to a building, but is not subject to property tax.
Now you need to start doing that minimal bit of Googling before you write instead of after.

“Queen of my domain”

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#176 Mar 10, 2013
-The-Artist- wrote:
<quoted text>
Real property, is distinct from personal property in that it cannot be moved.
Both are "tangible" and real property is normally subject to property tax, while personal is not always.
Then there is intellectual property, which by the virtual removal of the expiration limits, has acquired a status similar to real property in that it has become a fixed asset, that produces value, similar to a building, but is not subject to property tax.
Care to clarify? Personal property can also include real estate, which cannot be moved.

Intellectual property has never been defined as a "fixed asset", which is defined as "A long-term tangible piece of property that a firm owns and uses in the production of its income and is not expected to be consumed or converted into cash any sooner than at least one year's time." This not my definition, but is a standard accounting definition.

Accounting definitions of intellectual property, which encompass copyrights, include the word "intangible". Big difference. These can also include trade secrets and patents. The biggest difference between a patent and a copyright is that patents are issued for the ideas that drive tangible assets TO BE CREATED (wherein I *think* lies your confusion) and a copyright is for purely intellectual property. IP cannot be listed on a balance sheet, there is no assigned value. So how can one consider it a fixed asset? It's value is indirect and is reflected through stock prices, book sales, etc.--all of which fluctuate wildly and are attached directly to the company's (or individual's) economic/business performance.

Patents can be carried on the books, and they only provide protection against competition for 20 years...meaning someone cannot take your ideas to build the next and best widget. The value of it, that is depreciated, is the amount spent to filing that patent and developing it (the goods, materials, labor).

IP doesn't afford you any protection against competition. It only means that someone cannot take another's creative works--written words, images, musical scores, etc. and claim as their own for profit or use in a way that takes credit away from the creator. So I'm still confused why you think copyrights/IP are a fixed asset.

Google and you will find definitions quite similar on investment and financial sites.

“Tenured Marxist Radical”

Since: Jan 13

Ivy League-ISIS

#177 Mar 10, 2013
gokeefe wrote:
<quoted text>
Care to clarify? Personal property can also include real estate, which cannot be moved.
Intellectual property has never been defined as a "fixed asset", which is defined as "A long-term tangible piece of property that a firm owns and uses in the production of its income and is not expected to be consumed or converted into cash any sooner than at least one year's time." This not my definition, but is a standard accounting definition.
Accounting definitions of intellectual property, which encompass copyrights, include the word "intangible". Big difference. These can also include trade secrets and patents. The biggest difference between a patent and a copyright is that patents are issued for the ideas that drive tangible assets TO BE CREATED (wherein I *think* lies your confusion) and a copyright is for purely intellectual property. IP cannot be listed on a balance sheet, there is no assigned value. So how can one consider it a fixed asset? It's value is indirect and is reflected through stock prices, book sales, etc.--all of which fluctuate wildly and are attached directly to the company's (or individual's) economic/business performance.
Patents can be carried on the books, and they only provide protection against competition for 20 years...meaning someone cannot take your ideas to build the next and best widget. The value of it, that is depreciated, is the amount spent to filing that patent and developing it (the goods, materials, labor).
IP doesn't afford you any protection against competition. It only means that someone cannot take another's creative works--written words, images, musical scores, etc. and claim as their own for profit or use in a way that takes credit away from the creator. So I'm still confused why you think copyrights/IP are a fixed asset.
Google and you will find definitions quite similar on investment and financial sites.
The tax laws are different in every state, the difference between "movable" and "immovable" is not always the same. But real estate by definition cannot be moved.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_propert...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_pro...

The continuing extension of copyright terms has made it near perpetual, meaning that it has become a "fixed asset" that we have not found a means to tax yet. Copyright was never intended to be perpetual, but the laws have created a virtual equivalent of it. I highly doubt that when works from the 1920s are near expiration again, that the term will not be extended.

I understand that the rules currently don't see this form of IP as a fixed asset similar to a building, but it acts nearly the same.

We grow crops from an actual farm, both are taxed. But a "intellectual farm" that produces "intellectual crops" only has one taxed, if actual farm machinery is considered a fixed asset, then "intellectual farm machinery" should be considered the same. In effect that's what a copyright does.

“Tenured Marxist Radical”

Since: Jan 13

Ivy League-ISIS

#178 Mar 10, 2013

“Queen of my domain”

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#179 Mar 10, 2013
-The-Artist- wrote:
http://www.tomwbell.com/writin gs/(C)asIntellectualPrivilege. pdf
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/an-ant...
I wasn't able to read the Tom Bell article. Apparently, you need a login to view.

Am reading the American Conservative article; and I think some folks are confusing intellectual property with SOPA. They are very related, but SOPA is a movement designed to stop internet piracy.

I don't mean to belabor this too much, but honestly, it is an issue I am very close and dear to.

With SOPA, I can protest "unfair" usage of my creative works. And because I hold copyright on them doesn't necessarily mean I am just making a profit off of them. I'll give you a very real, very true example.

I do run a website, it is dedicated to genealogy. I can use whatever photos I wish that I've scanned that are beyond the scope of copyright. I can publish whatever documents I want there as well--because facts cannot be copywritten.(Documents I'm referring to are census records, birth records, etc. that are already in the public domain and are related ONLY to those who have been deceased a long time, the government DOES NOT publish census data publicly UNTIL 70 years have passed. Hence, we've just gotten access to the 1940 census in the last few years. But that is off track.

With this genealogical website, I clearly mark and copyright ANY photos I have taken--often of gravesites that are hard to locate, specific geographical locations that have meaning, AND I give credit to those who contribute this type of data as well.

This may be arcane; however, the reason I use what is called an "creative commons licensing agreement". http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/...

This requires anyone who takes any of my creative works to acknowledge such. If not, and I find it published elsewhere on the internet, I can request that website to remove the wrongfully cited material down.

There are a lot of issues here other than just economic/financial. Part of it is the intellectual or academic part that requires one to NOT take credit for work that does not belong to them.

I'll digest the American Conservative article a bit more. I still disagree. But this is a good discussion, and appreciate the lack of acrimony.

“Tenured Marxist Radical”

Since: Jan 13

Ivy League-ISIS

#180 Mar 10, 2013
gokeefe wrote:
<quoted text>
I wasn't able to read the Tom Bell article. Apparently, you need a login to view.
Am reading the American Conservative article; and I think some folks are confusing intellectual property with SOPA. They are very related, but SOPA is a movement designed to stop internet piracy.
I don't mean to belabor this too much, but honestly, it is an issue I am very close and dear to.
With SOPA, I can protest "unfair" usage of my creative works. And because I hold copyright on them doesn't necessarily mean I am just making a profit off of them. I'll give you a very real, very true example.
I do run a website, it is dedicated to genealogy. I can use whatever photos I wish that I've scanned that are beyond the scope of copyright. I can publish whatever documents I want there as well--because facts cannot be copywritten.(Documents I'm referring to are census records, birth records, etc. that are already in the public domain and are related ONLY to those who have been deceased a long time, the government DOES NOT publish census data publicly UNTIL 70 years have passed. Hence, we've just gotten access to the 1940 census in the last few years. But that is off track.
With this genealogical website, I clearly mark and copyright ANY photos I have taken--often of gravesites that are hard to locate, specific geographical locations that have meaning, AND I give credit to those who contribute this type of data as well.
This may be arcane; however, the reason I use what is called an "creative commons licensing agreement". http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/...
This requires anyone who takes any of my creative works to acknowledge such. If not, and I find it published elsewhere on the internet, I can request that website to remove the wrongfully cited material down.
There are a lot of issues here other than just economic/financial. Part of it is the intellectual or academic part that requires one to NOT take credit for work that does not belong to them.
I'll digest the American Conservative article a bit more. I still disagree. But this is a good discussion, and appreciate the lack of acrimony.
I hold a divergent view towards SOPA, in that I fear it delivers the government far more power over the internet, and will act as another round of major lawsuits from idiot kids doing the equivalent of downloading music. I don't agree with rampant file sharing, but I find the idea that the digital equivalent of a book is not really yours, but is a license. It leads me into the accusations of "digital sharecropping"

For instance, a few years ago, a law firm was retained by newspapers to halt the copy and pasting of articles even with a link. It would have opened up George to threats of prosecution, and many blogs were targeted. I'm not the best expert on the idea of SOPA/PIPPA, but it does concern me about the influence of the Big Six media orgs and the expansion of government power.

This is certainly an enlivining discussion, and this I think will grow into a major issue of debate in the coming years, so I'm interested in learning more about it.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 9
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Columbus Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Dear Duke (Got a problem, I've got your solution) 31 min d pantz 90
Marion Woman Sentenced To 5 Years For Taking Sh... 45 min They cannot kill ... 1
Armed Contractor on Elevator with President 49 min -The-Artist- 57
Carolyn Bruck, channel 6 (Jan '12) 1 hr They cannot kill ... 317
Is Barack Obama Doing a Good Job as President? (Aug '13) 1 hr Pale Rider 3,555
OH Who do you support for Governor in Ohio in 2010? (Oct '10) 2 hr ino 31,495
Double standards for muslims, bending league rules 2 hr BizzyBee 46
Two fish were swimming upstream.... 8 hr Duke for Mayor 385

Columbus Jobs

Columbus People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Columbus News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Columbus

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]