That's why it's called Income Withholding. Servers don't pay taxes into the system. The Fed just eats the difference." And nothing in your retort says anything to contradict it at all.
The Feds do not "eat the difference". Lots of employers do not withhold income taxes on wages. 10-99 employes or "contract workers" do not have income taxes withheld. It's the responsibility of the worker to pay the income tax on thier own. Income tax not being withheld doesn't, in any way, relieve someone of the responsibility of having to pay the tax.
Servers DO NOT pay into taxes with their tips period
Servers have to claim thier tips. It's considered taxable income by the IRS. You seem to be making some sort of silly distinction between whether the taxes are withheld from the actual tips or from the paycheck from the house. It makes no difference at all. The bottom line is the fact that the tips are considered taxable income and servers do pay income taxes on the money they receive in tips.
Let's consider a simple case: Man robs the bank and take $10,000 dollars. He is arrested. Should he be allowed to keep the $10,000 and use it for legal fees, or does it get seized as basically "what was stolen"? The answer is generally simple, almost everyone can agree that the money needs to get seized.
So why not a system where the assets can be seized like they are now, but are held intact in some sort of escrow account? Physical items could be warehoused and real property could be placed under a title hold. The accused cannot access them, but neither can the government. If the government fails to secure a conviction, then the assets are returned in toto since they cannot be "ill-begotten gains" if no crime was committed in the first place.
Taxes are only taken out of a paycheck. That's why it's called Income Withholding. Servers don't pay taxes into the system. The Fed just eats the difference.
That's not true. As far back as the early 80's when I waited tables you had to claim your tips every week on your time card. Taxes for the tips were removed from the paycheck you received from the house. The paychecks I received were usually less than $50 for a 40 hour week after all the taxes were paid.
You could fudge a little bit with the cash tips, but if you didn't at least cover the credit card tips and come some where close to a percentage of the total house sales you could expect to get your tax return audited.
I think a writer writing a book, someone read it like it, copy it and sell it, without compensating the author, with no recourse because he/she didn't register it, is unjust. A songwriter needing to register a song every time they write and record one or else someone can copy it verbatim and sell it is what our system, as implemented today, is supposed to protect.
Prior to the 1976 Act a rights holder did not have any recourse against infringement unless they registered the copyright. You didn't have standing to sue unless you registered. Even today, if you don't register your copyright prior to infringement, you cannot sue for statutory damages or legal costs.
I think you are failing to see the benefit to the creator from automatic protection.
Well, copyright's main purpose is to benefit the public. The rights we give to the creator is only the means to achieve that end. The benefit to the public outweighs any annoyance it may cause the creators, in my opinion.
Let me put this another way, inventors have to register their patents in order to gain protection, so why should copyright be any different? The creators are being granted a sole monopoly on their creations, so why shouldn't they have to work a little bit in order to gain such a valuable right?
You seem to imply that copyright has tremendous value to you, but not enough for you to actually do a little work in order to receive it.
Having a simple system to use orphaned works such as a waiver stating they tried to find the copyright holder, couldn't, but if they surfaced could get a statutory amount for use is a possible solution. If you are claiming the only way to remedy orphaned works is by eliminating automatic copyright protection upon creation, it's not that I'm "more worried about the inconvenience," I just don't agree.
Such a system may help our current situation some, I agree. I think we need to fix the system going forward so we don't have to rely to these "fixes" in the future. The problem is only going to get worse and I am worried about my grandchildren and their children who will inherit this problem further down the road.
The concept of automatic copyright protection was codified by the Berne Convention in 1868.(147 years) In the U.S...
You don't seem to be grasping the fundumental fact that the US didn't actually sign on to the Berne Convention until over hundred years after it existed. We basically ignored it, mainly due to the moral rights requirements.
However, I do believe copyright protection should be automatic, without registration.
Yes, I know. You seem much more worried about the inconvience of having to register your works over fixing the tragic problem of losing massive amounts of our society's culture and history because nobody can figure out what is copyrighted and whether anyone exists to claim those copyrights.
Table 1 has the renewals broken down by "class", but I haven't found a key that indicates what is what.
Although, there is a hint in the paragraph describing Table 1:
Table 1 shows that, as far as renewals are concerned, music is by far the most important class of copyrightable works. Nearly half of all renewal registrations cover musical compositions, and more than 1/3 of the musical compositions registered in 1931-1932 were renewed. In contrast, only 7% of books and 11% of periodicals are being renewed.
On an aside, as I was researching this I came across an interesting study that reinforces the notion that our current copyright terms are way too long. It's from a 1961 Senate study on copyright renewals. It shows that the percentage of works that were actually renewed ranged from 4% for works copyrighted in 1883 up to about 15% for works copyrighted in 1932.
In other words, 85% to 95% of creators didn't need copyright longer than 28 years.
Copyright registration in the US was required up until the Copyright Act of 1976 was put into force on January 1, 1978.
I slightly misspoke here. Works created under the Copyright Act of 1909 prior to 1964 did not require registration for the first 28 years as long as they were published (made available to the public) and had a properly affixed copyright notice. Copyright registration was required in order to gain another 28 years of protection. Works after 1964 automatically gained renewal with the passing of the Copyright Renewal Act of 1992. The Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998 extended protection for those works another 20 years.
And yet artists sign deals with the labels all the time because of the value that the labels bring to the artists. They don't just own the copyrights--they promote the artists. Nothing prevents artists from going it alone or choosing to sign. That's the great thing. Why do you want to take away the opportunity that so many want to sign up for? For someone who advocates an abundance of ideas about what works, you seem to have a very narrow sense of things.
Yes, artists have a choice today because of the opportunities that exist now. It wasn't all that long ago that the only way to get any exposure at all was by signing all of your rights away to a record label. Period. End of story. That's what we need to prevent from happening again.
AFAIK, Mike has never wanted the demise of the record labels. He has argued in the past that they can still serve a valuable service to artists. He simply argues against them being the sole controller of an artist's destiny.
Youtube could possibly shift over onto the "gatekeeper" side of the equation in the future, but I don't think they will. I doubt that Google could remove the single most appealing aspect (ability to self-publish) of YouTube without destroying the entire YouTube brand.
The better way would be to simply require that the law determine (using psychologists/etc.) whether the potential victim was capable of consenting, regardless of age.
I'm not sure that is plausible or even possible. What I am talking about is the Age of Majority or the point where a child legally becomes an adult. Would you require a physiological evaluation for every 18 year old who wants to vote in the next election or purchase a car or get married?
To treat someone who is 18, but still in high school, as an adult is probably the most ridiculous "catch all" in the fiasco.
I disagree. We have to define the legal line between child and adult somewhere. We, as a society, have chosen 18 for that line (for most things). At 18 you can vote, own property, marry, make your own medical choices, serve in the military, etc. Why would you not also be responsible for your own actions at 18 too? Whether you have graduated high school or not is irrelevant here.
If you are going to argue that 18 is too young to be held responsible for ones' own actions, fine, but you must also argue that it's too young for ALL of the other responsibilities and consequences that come with legally becoming an adult.