Friends this interesting alignment.

[Saa]

[Phi for All]

I don't understand this thread at all. What is it you want to know? Why did you start a poll? What country is this process used in? 

Are you asking about forcing authors to fund some kind of nature restoration program? Why only authors?

[Saa]

Thanks. Forcing authors. All over the world

[Phi for All]

3 minutes ago, Saa said:

Thanks. Forcing authors. All over the world

Why only authors? What do you have against authors? What about authors of books on environmental restoration, aren't they already doing enough to help?

I don't understand why you used the word "alignment" in the title, but I suspect it's a translation goof.

With regard to the poll question, I don't understand the relationship between the question, the choices regarding improvement, and what author gets "in the end". I suspect this is also a translation problem. In English, your thread makes very little sense.

[Saa]

Creating any project with gratitude to nature. 

In 1710, Queen Anne signed the first copyright law.
Although at that time and before, many scientists believed that they were only conductors
of ideas and would not correctly assert their rights
Now we can say with confidence that we are conductors
- thanks to our planet Earth, its nature,.
It has been more than 300 years since 1710, how we legitimately don't notice Nature.
The solution is simple - to recognize the nature of the primary In laws

[Phi for All]

If you're trying to suggest that all projects (businesses included) should be assessed a tax that helps offsets the damage humans have inflicted on our environments, I can agree with that. If everyone and every endeavor gave a small portion to fix our problems, it would not only be effective at combating problems we've created in the natural world, it would also give humans a great reason to band together as a species. 

Imagine if we didn't waste so many resources squabbling amongst ourselves, and actually had more common goals....

[Intrigued]

It is still difficult to confidently understand what you have written. Does the following come close to your idea?

Scientists and engineers do not invent things, or "create" discoveries, they reveal what was already inherently present.

Consequently their work is a revelation to which they are not entitled reap all the benefits. Thus all authors are entitled to only a proportion of patents and copyrights. The benefits should be spread between a "support" of nature and the protection of this new system and a portion to the "author".

[Saa]

Thank you. That's exactly it. 

[Strange]

The work done by scientists and engineers is not protected by copyright (apart from the tiny numbers who write books about their work). Most authors barely make a living from writing.

So it seems unfair to target authors, when most of the money goes to large companies (and perhaps most of the damage is caused by them as well.)  

[Intrigued]

1 hour ago, Strange said:

The work done by scientists and engineers is not protected by copyright (apart from the tiny numbers who write books about their work). Most authors barely make a living from writing.

So it seems unfair to target authors, when most of the money goes to large companies (and perhaps most of the damage is caused by them as well.)  

As I pointed out on in my earlier post, Saa is not talking about authors, sensuo stricto, as the writers of books, but authors as the producers of ideas, inventions and discoveries.

[swansont]

3 minutes ago, Intrigued said:

As I pointed out on in my earlier post, Saa is not talking about authors, sensuo stricto, as the writers of books, but authors as the producers of ideas, inventions and discoveries.

The use of “copyright” indicates otherwise. Ideas, inventions and discoveries cannot be copyrighted.

[Phi for All]

What if I invent something that helps the environment? It seems unfair for me to pay the same tax/fee that the inventor of a gasoline guzzling de-rainforesting machine pays.

[Intrigued]

Just now, swansont said:

The use of “copyright” indicates otherwise. Ideas, inventions and discoveries cannot be copyrighted.

First, as Phi noted earlier, there could be translation issues in Saa's post.

Second, Saa has agreed with my interpretation of his concepts.

[Strange]

6 minutes ago, Intrigued said:

First, as Phi noted earlier, there could be translation issues in Saa's post.

As Saa seems to have hit the 5 post limit for their first day, we will have to wait and see...

(Given the number of people who post here and seem to think copyright can protect their ideas, I would think it more likely to be due to a misunderstanding rather than translation.)

[swansont]

19 hours ago, Intrigued said:

First, as Phi noted earlier, there could be translation issues in Saa's post.

Second, Saa has agreed with my interpretation of his concepts.

And you had mentioned copyright in your interpretation. Further, the mention of Queen Anne and copyright indicates that the notion is indeed copyright. Which (as I said) does not apply to  ideas, inventions and discoveries.

19 hours ago, Strange said:

 (Given the number of people who post here and seem to think copyright can protect their ideas, I would think it more likely to be due to a misunderstanding rather than translation.)

Yes, exactly.

[Saa]

22 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Udh

This scheme is for new copyright only.
For those who realized it.
The old copyright scheme will not be affected.
Let each author himself choose where to be.

Under this new scheme
I mean.
Any possible copyright. All Copyright Revenues. Even if this right is sold to another state. Even if the author is long gone.
Will be created The Union of conscious countries, States
This alliance will benefit all.
1/3 part which will go to the restoration of nature need divide in half to make friendly relationship between the countries. Half remains in the author's country and goes to the restoration of Nature, geographically, next to the Author - is the processing of landfills, planting vegetation and more. The other half will go to the restoration of Nature in the Country where you buy a product or service of the Author. Territorially near the buyer.
All honest
Values will be rethought.
The author will become a peacemaker.
A single copyright protection organization will be created.

22 hours ago, Phi for All said:

What if I invent something that helps the environment?

will receive a passport of a citizen of the world and will be honorary person of any country.

3 hours ago, swansont said:

And you had mentioned copyright in your interpretation. Further, the mention of Queen Anne and copyright indicates that the notion is indeed copyright. Which (as I said) does not apply to  ideas, inventions and discoveries.

Let it be for now. Under the new scheme, the state itself will be interested in the welfare of the author. And in the implementation of the author's projects

The bottom line is not to argue. - try to team up together

[Strange]

1 hour ago, Saa said:

This scheme is for new copyright only.
For those who realized it.
The old copyright scheme will not be affected.
Let each author himself choose where to be.

You still haven't explained: why copyright?

This will affect musicians, painters, authors. Most of whom don't earn a large amount of money. 

But it won't affect people who make billions running companies that pollute and damage the environment. This does not seem fair. Or even sensible.

And it won't affect scientists and engineers. Surely a scheme should encourage scientists, engineers and businesses to develop products that are better for the environment. Maybe by taxing those that are not.

Instead you are taking money from people who may have no control over the environment.

2 hours ago, Saa said:

All Copyright Revenues.

There isn't really any such thing as "copyright revenue".

You own copyright in the posts you make on this forum, but there is no revenue from that.

I work as a writer but I don't own copyright in anything I do. So my pay is not  "copyright revenue".

The companies that do own the copyright in my work don't make any money from it, so they don't get any  "copyright revenue".

An author who gets a few cents for each book sold doesn't get  "copyright revenue". They just get a (small) percentage of sales.

2 hours ago, Saa said:

The bottom line is not to argue.

It is hard to resist arguing with such a stupid idea.

[Saa]

8 hours ago, Strange said:

You still haven't explained: why copyright?

When there is injustice, you have to look to the root. The root is the idea at the beginning of its education. Naturally. it will affect people who create billions of companies. It will also affect writers, musicians, artists. On people who wish to profit from this.
I cannot describe the whole process, too much has already been created. It's like in mathematics — in an equation or problem. What is the point to correct the error at the end?

8 hours ago, Strange said:

There isn't really any such thing as "copyright revenue".

With the current system of copyright protection - you are right. 

Because nobody is interested in us now, except for ourselves.

 

9 hours ago, Saa said:

Values will be rethought.
The author will become a peacemaker.

I repeat

8 hours ago, Strange said:

You own copyright in the posts you make on this forum, but there is no revenue from that.

Time will pass your children will tell you. Dad - the nature around has become better.

Friends, I accidentally noticed. Text translation. Sometimes in a different way.

Edited May 5, 2019 by Saa

[Saa]

On 5/3/2019 at 6:54 PM, Intrigued said:

Scientists and engineers do not invent things, or "create" discoveries, they reveal what was already inherently present.

Consequently their work is a revelation to which they are not entitled reap all the benefits. Thus all authors are entitled to only a proportion of patents and copyrights. The benefits should be spread between a "support" of nature and the protection of this new system and a portion to the "author".

Thank you for understanding

8 hours ago, Strange said:

It is hard to resist arguing with such a stupid idea.

The idea is not flawless. She is just beginning to emerge. There are also positives

[Strange]

5 hours ago, Saa said:

Naturally. it will affect people who create billions of companies. 

Why? Most companies don’t rely on copyright. 

 

5 hours ago, Saa said:

With the current system of copyright protection - you are right. 

So you are not really talking about copyright. You are talking about some new tax system that you have invented. You have confused things by calling it copyright.

It sounds what you really want is a tax on inventions. Or something. It really isn't clear.

Why not just tax companies that pollute the most: then they will be encouraged not to pollute, and they will pay to clean up their mess.

[Sensei]

1 hour ago, Strange said:

Why? Most companies don’t rely on copyright.  

Maybe when Saa is talking about"copyright" actually means "intellectual property" i.e. patent protected descriptions of how to produce some thing.

Companies rely on patents extensively. They create new one, buy and collect existing, buy licenses for existing patents, buy other companies to acquire access to owned by them patents etc. etc.

Companies copyright their logo, their trademarks, to disallow somebody using them and pretending them.

Saa, copyright is for e.g. musicians, graphicians, painters, book writers, artists, etc. etc.

Patents law is for inventors of useful innovative product, or way existing product can be created e.g. process of production of chemical compound novelty way.

 

Saa, your arbitrary way of splitting income does not make sense. Each industry requires completely different amounts of money for production of thing company is selling to people or other companies. It's up to patent owner and company that received license for production how they will arrange their cooperation, and how they split their income. License owner can demand fixed amount per unit, percentage per unit, percentage from income (after reduction of cost production). That's result of negotiations between parties involved and usually secret.

[Strange]

9 minutes ago, Sensei said:

Maybe when Saa is talking about"copyright" actually means "intellectual property" i.e. patent protected descriptions of how to produce some thing.

Maybe. But if companies just use patents for protection then there is no revenue from them. It is only if they licence them to other companies that they get royalties. 

[Sensei]

Just now, Strange said:

Maybe. But if companies just use patents for protection then there is no revenue from them. It is only if they licence them to other companies that they get royalties.  

There is no direct revenue, but there is increase of value of company owning interesting patents. And that added value can be used during negotiations with e.g. banks giving loans or private investors.

[Strange]

25 minutes ago, Sensei said:

There is no direct revenue, but there is increase of value of company owning interesting patents. And that added value can be used during negotiations with e.g. banks giving loans or private investors.

So we are back to a completely different idea: a tax on the size of companies to support nature?

[Saa]

Thank you friends, you are right. I will add more. Later