Lawrence Lessig appears to agree with the classification of copyright as a tax.

Copyright is not a tax, but a suspension of the public’s liberty – affording the copyright beneficiary a commercially advantageous monopoly – provided as an incentive to publish.

Extending copyright cannot retrospectively increase the incentive. It is also unlikely to affect the incentive for new publications.

The value of a published work can be equated to the royalty it obtains its author in its lifetime (minus tax). This is because one assumes the author would be happy to receive the total royalty to place the work immediately into the public domain. Perhaps a bit more to finance promotional costs otherwise borne by publishers.

Enabling an author to invite their readers to offer this royalty upfront (or a significant proportion of it) in exchange for publishing their work copyleft, is the reasoning behind sites such as The Digital Art Auction and QuidMusic.

The alternative approach is to have a central committee appraise the value of each book, count the number of copies in circulation, and reward the author accordingly – sourcing the funds from taxation.

So let’s make sure we don’t get confused by tax and liberty eh?

1. Copyright is an imposition on liberty in exchange for incentivised publication.
2. Taxation is a compulsory commission on prosperity in exchange for security.
3. A free market enables artists and audiences to exchange art and money.

Let’s be very careful before we start including art in the list of things citizens should be taxed for. And let’s not kid anyone that we’re already being taxed for art, in order to sanction taxation of a new form.