Friends this interesting alignment.

[Intrigued]

On 5/4/2019 at 2:15 PM, 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.

But I also mentioned patents. It is - pun intended - patently clear to me that whether through translation error or misunderstanding of terminology  Saa is using the term copyright, as Sensei suggests, to cover intellectual property. Strange and you appear determined to be critical of a strawman rather than help Saa clarify the idea he was actually trying to present. Full marks to Saa for persisting.

[Strange]

27 minutes ago, Intrigued said:

But I also mentioned patents. It is - pun intended - patently clear to me that whether through translation error or misunderstanding of terminology  Saa is using the term copyright, as Sensei suggests, to cover intellectual property. Strange and you appear determined to be critical of a strawman rather than help Saa clarify the idea he was actually trying to present. Full marks to Saa for persisting.

But even generalising to patents and other forms of IP, the idea doesn't really make sense. The income that companies make, and the damage they do to the environment, is not directly related to the size of patent portfolios.

[swansont]

3 hours ago, Intrigued said:

But I also mentioned patents. It is - pun intended - patently clear to me that whether through translation error or misunderstanding of terminology  Saa is using the term copyright, as Sensei suggests, to cover intellectual property. Strange and you appear determined to be critical of a strawman rather than help Saa clarify the idea he was actually trying to present. Full marks to Saa for persisting.

Yes. A misunderstanding of the terminology, which was my point

[Intrigued]

3 hours ago, Strange said:

But even generalising to patents and other forms of IP, the idea doesn't really make sense. The income that companies make, and the damage they do to the environment, is not directly related to the size of patent portfolios.

I agree. I was not arguing for his proposal, but seeking to ensure we addressed his proposal and not a strawman version arising from his (accidental) misuse of terms.

[Saa]

On 5/5/2019 at 11:01 AM, Sensei said:

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.

Thank you for painting all the details. I admit, for me it was all one. Copyright and Intellectual Property., author, middleman, producer.
The main thing is the final product or service that the buyer will buy.
If this product or service is protected by copyright, then the scheme that I described is valid.

And the most important thing is the rapprochement of states in the common cause: environmental protection and copyright.

[Strange]

4 hours ago, Saa said:

If this product or service is protected by copyright, then the scheme that I described is valid.

Music, books, TV, movies: yes.

Food, cars, houses, electricity, furniture, and the majority of the rest of your spending: no.

4 hours ago, Saa said:

The main thing is the final product or service that the buyer will buy.

Then just put a tax on sales of goods and on the profits made by the producers.

In most countries these are already taxed, so just assign a proportion of that tax to protecting the environment.

In most countries that is already done, so campaign for a larger amount of tax revenue to be spent protecting the environment.

Why invent a new tax?

[Saa]

5 hours ago, Strange said:

Music, books, TV, movies: yes.

For example this

5 hours ago, Strange said:

Why invent a new tax?

It is not tax. 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. 

Edited May 8, 2019 by Saa

[DrP]

7 minutes ago, Saa said:

It is not tax

Sounds like tax. That's what tax is for no? You take a slice of the earnings for public spending (spending on the environment being public spending and all).

 

[Strange]

16 minutes ago, Saa said:

For example this

The IT industry does not rely on income from copyright or, to a large extent, any other form of IP revenue. 

Quote

It is not tax. One system is enough. The remaining taxes are removed

So you would be expecting a tiny number of companies who make their income from intellectual property to subsidies every other company in the world. The top 10 industries in the USA do not directly make money from intellectual property.

https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/which-are-the-biggest-industries-in-the-united-states.html

In fact, only 1 industry in the top 20 does. So you are expecting to raise as much money from 4% of the economy as is currently made from taxing 100% of the economy. 

Can you begin to see the flaw in this plan?

So, taking 1/3rd of the only industry based on IP is equivalent to just 10% from the one largest industry sector.

Or, to put it another way, by taking 1/3rd of the income from only the largest industry would give you more money than the total revenue from IP.

 

[dimreepr]

8 minutes ago, Strange said:

The IT does not rely on income from copyright or, to a large extent, any other form of IP revenue. 

So you would be expecting a tiny number of companies who make their income from intellectual property to subsidies every other company in the world. The top 10 industries in the USA do not directly make money from intellectual property.

https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/which-are-the-biggest-industries-in-the-united-states.html

In fact, only 1 industry in the top 20 does. So you are expecting to raise as much money from 4% of the economy as is currently made from taxing 100% of the economy. 

Can you begin to see the flaw in this plan?

So, taking 1/3rd of the only industry based on IP is equivalent to just 10% from the one largest industry sector.

Or, to put it another way, by taking 1/3rd of the income from only the largest industry would give you more money than the total revenue from IP.

 

It seems like Saa is suggesting we're facing the first Marxist crisis, via google translation, I could be wrong.