On Oct 24, 2007, at 2:43 AM, dhbailey wrote:
Yes, it's a boondoggle, but it's done all the time. Bonds are
issued to pay for a bridge or highway, which are to be paid for by
the collection of tolls. Even when the initial legislation
includes languages to the effect of "when the bonds are paid off,
the tolls shall be removed" what usually happens is that new
legislation is introduced since the legislature views the tolls as
a new revenue source.
All the toll highways in the U.S. which were built in the 1950s
have been paid off yet many still continue to collect tolls.
Sure, but in those cases it's the government who is now pocketing the
money. That's not very nice to the public, but at least it's
profitable from the government's point of view.
In my example, I meant to suggest a case in which the government
hands over public funds to a private concern -- which is essentially
what I believe was done in the 1998 copyright act. That's a
different sort of corruption.
--
On Oct 24, 2007, at 3:00 PM, dhbailey wrote:
Playing devil's advocate here a la the Ragpicker (Danny Kaye in the
movie) in the Madwoman of Chaillot -- what is the expense to the
public? What money does it cost the public to let Disney keep the
mouse under copyright? Instead, the thousands of employees of
Disney corporation pay taxes on their share of the income that the
mouse-copyright provides, they buy their houses from local
realtors, they buy their groceries and gasoline and clothes and
books and other stuff from local economies, go to local movie
theaters to watch movies, etc. etc. etc.
This threatens to turn into a political argument, so I'm not sure I
want to pursue it in much detail. I would just point out that the
argument you advance for your client could just as easily be used to
defend any wealth transfer. "We should give $x million dollars to
industry Y because it will create jobs and that will lead to..." and
ever-increasing circles of marvelous growth all from that one
handout. The problem is that it's single-entry accounting. Unless
you're actually creating wealth, which in our example you're not,
that money you take simply comes from somewhere else, where someone
else's advocate could point to equivalent ever-increasing circles of
jobs and
taxes and purchases etc lost on the other side of the ledger.
Personally I think it costs the public a *lot* to have such lengthy
copyright terms, just not in economic terms.
Agreed. The real loss is in having works freely available. The loss
is in the promotion of useful arts and sciences.
mdl
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
