I'm not sure how depreciation would fare in "intellectual property" because it's really just a device to leverage tax incentives and extract value from real estate that depends on the reality that physical objects break and degrade in quality.
If what you're suggesting is that more artists take advantage of this maneuver in the realm of music and art, then I think you're committing the fairly common fallacy of equating physical property with creative works. The reason why depreciation won't work for creative works is because they don't actually depreciate in physical value -- a song's copyright is no less "useful" in its state 20 years after it's useful than it is at the time of its creation. I suppose there's an argument for notion that copyrights dilute over time as a matter of fashion and taste (while most ragtime is copyrighted, much fewer of those works are as valuable as they were at the time of their creation due to the popular taste of music consumers -- apologies to any ragtime fans on this list) this seems a odd and difficult factor for the law to account for. IANAL, F On 10/28/07, Eliot P. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > A major issue in intellectual property is common depreciation. What is > that? Well on one hand, the profit of a real estate investment, is not > taxed as highly because the value of the property is depreciated. It > doesn't matter whether the property is old or new.. That makes this a maor > income generating opportunity for real estate owners. They can withdraw > money since their tax is minimal. But being a rock star is not like being a > real estater. Believe me, I know all about rock music. > > OK so when I go to do rock star work, my work has some value, but there > are also costs. Now what if I say that I can rock twice for the same > cost.. No that is not true. I can not double rock and roll. > > But if I have cash to invest, in rock stars, then what I can do is invest > for a higher interest. I ell that rock star he has to rock for my money, or > I will put a lien on that guitar and drums till he pays off. He tells me > some sad story, I can' rock but once, eh. > > So I get the tape recorder, and come over to the concert. I record the > concert and now I can double the investment and make twice as much. I keep > all of that money. He says I want some of that money. But it was the tape > recorder that I used. He can't rock it more than once. And so most > technology displaces people . That is a transcendence of their value within > an open system where they are not getting feedback and control. In a closed > system they would have gotten feedback and would not rock wher there was a > tape recorder. Since that technology is going to cost them money. that is > what happens with technology and investment. It tends to transcend the > stabiliy and speeds thing up. hat happens to everybody. Investment > requires interest must be paid, while the worker is offered a conditional > employment depending upon his usefulness. But I can still rock and roll.. > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss > >
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
