Intellectual Property Tax

“Intellectual property” is not a valid form of property. It is only valuable because the State “justice” system gives it value. All you get from owning “intellectual property” is the opportunity to sue someone, or a defense if someone else sues you.

“Intellectual property” is owned by the inventor. In practice, most of it winds up owned by large corporations. You have to sell your “intellectual property” to a corporation and get anything published (although the Internet changes that somewhat).  Even when individuals do control their IP until they die, their heirs typically sell it to a large corporation.  Getting a patent approved is expensive, and a patent lawsuit is even more expensive; most patents are owned by large corporations.  Most “intellectual property” laws are corporate welfare for the insiders who own most of the ideas.

Physical property is subject to property taxes. You must pay a % of the value each year, or lose it.

Why is there no “property tax” on intellectual property? Patents expire after 34 years, limiting the abuse. With retroactive copyright extension, copyrights effectively last forever now. Trademarks also last forever.

That also would solve the “orphan works” problem.  If nobody paid to re-renew the copyright, then you know it’s public domain and free to use.  Currently, if you can’t find who owns the copyright, it’s still illegal to copy it, even for old-but-still-copyrighted works.

If someone owns “intellectual property”, they should be forced to pay a % of the value every year or lose it, just like with physical property. The older the copyright or trademark, the greater the % tax should be.

There is no “property tax” for intellectual property. That is more evidence that “intellectual property” primarily exists for the benefit of insiders. It is hypocritical that people say “Intellectual property should be treated like physical property!”, without simultaneously arguing for an intellectual property tax.

7 Responses to Intellectual Property Tax

  1. OK this comment is very off-topic, but I read an article in the Daily Mail today that is so shocking I just felt I had to pass it on to FSK.


    It seems a woman formed a company that is mainly funded by taxpayers’ money. Its purpose to to get unemployed families back into work. The company has failed in its purpose.

    Yet the head of the company has got a 8.6 million Pounds Sterling dividend payment for herself!!!!!!!

    That 8.6 million pounds came from taxpayers.

    As we know here on this blog, taxpayers don’t voluntarily give money out of the kindness of their hearts, but rather if they don’t pay it they get carted off to prison by police thugs i.e. tax is money extracted by implicit threat of violence.

    Wouldn’t it be better if there was less tax and people give money voluntarily to good causes?

    No one that has to work hard for money would give it to this clown of a woman!

  2. Actually, property tax is the thing that is invalid.

    I find it hypocritical for a blogger to say intellectual property doesn’t exist, when it generates income for him/her.

    Your site has value b/c of the intellectual property you publish.

    • All taxation is theft. That includes property tax.

      Intellectual property is a type of tax.

      Actually, my blog generates zero income for me.

      Some spam blogs copy my content, without citing a link back. Why aren’t you reading it there instead of here? I’m not really concerned about the possible loss due to people copying my content.

      My site has value because people will keep coming back here for new content. Some spam blogs don’t copy over the formatting. Most spam blogs don’t copy comments. Realistically, I’m not losing regular readers due to people copying my stuff. They’re just trying to exploit defects in Google’s search engine.

      I’m still a net loser due to copyright, even I did make decent income for my blog. For example, if I wanted to make my own Superman cartoon, that’s illegal, because of intellectual property law. Every song and story from the 20th century is copyrighted and owned by some corporation. That severely restricts the type of stories I could tell, if I wanted to get into the independent filmmaker business.

      It’s funny to listen to some of the hoops people have to jump through, when shooting a film. Basically, every shot needs to be cleared. You need to get approval for everything. For example, if there’s a poster in the background, you have to get permission from the poster copyright owner. If there’s a McDonald’s in the background, you have to get permission from them to show it. The net effect is a tax on filmmaking. A multi million dollar film can afford it, but not the guy self-publishing on a thin budget.

      It’s even worse than that. Suppose I wrote my own song, but it sort of sounded like a copyrighted song. I still could be sued for copyright infringement.

      The net effect of copyright law is a huge regressive tax on small independent filmmakers and independent artists.

      Unless you’re already a superstar promoted by the mainstream media, you don’t benefit from intellectual property. Unless you’re already on the mainstream media gravy train, “intellectual property” restricts your opportunities more than it enables them.

      For another example, even if I did have a complete copy of my employer’s software, I still wouldn’t be able to steal their customers. My employer would sue me if I tried that, but I still wouldn’t be able to steal their customers, even if it was legal for me to try.

      For another example, I download old no-longer-marketable out-of-print games. Those games have a market value of close to zero. It’s illegal, but it really isn’t hurting anyone. Even if I hunted down a copy and bought a legal copy, it’d benefit some collector and people who actually wrote the game. For the few that are still being sold, a purchase would benefit some the CEO of some large corporation, and not the people who actually wrote it.

      The correct answer is that “intellectual property” is not a valid form of property. Even though I have a blog and my job is writing software, I still say that copying isn’t stealing.

      That’s a common State lie. “Intellectual property benefits everyone!” No, it primarily benefits the insiders at large corporations, who own almost all the copyrights. Copyright also benefits the State-approved artists, who have the benefit of the State media cartel promoting their work. Everyone else is a net loser due to “intellectual property”.

    • I was mostly referring to copyrights and trademarks, which are currently unlimited. A copyright or trademark is useless if you never publish it at all.

      That’s pro-State trolling, “Without intellectual property law, nobody would invent anything, nobody would make art, nobody would make anything.”

  3. >For example, if there’s a poster in the background, you have to get permission from
    >the poster copyright owner.

    I did read about copyright law (probably case law) a few years ago. I think that sort of thing is legal though and should only be cleared if you are being extra-cautious.

    A shot of a poster that is only a small part of the overall frame in the background for a very limited amount of time, should fall under fair use.

    • It may be legal under “fair use”. However, a media corporation with lots of assets won’t risk a lawsuit.

      If you don’t clear every background image, no mainstream media corporation will publish your work. Even if something should be “fair use”, a media corporation will demand a license for every image. Effectively, it’s illegal to not clear every image.

      It’s a regressive tax on small filmmakers. It’s expensive to get a fee for every background image, or make sure that the location has nothing un-approved.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>