So I flew to Europe, got the new pegylated medicines for about twenty-five thousand dollars of my own carefully saved money, and flew back to USA.
He's been importing into the US an article that embodies a patented invention. This is infringing. So is using them in the US as well, actually.
The logic behind that is fairly plain, for a patent in the US is pretty useless if it can be circumvented merely by importing articles from abroad which aren't allowed by the US rightsholder. Hence the import ban. There is a similar one for copyrights.
I am suggesting that he travel to Europe, or someplace, and stay there during the course of his treatment.
They're hardly liable or guilty of anything. They're doing nothing, and they've incurred no duty to help him.
anyway, what i think they should do is allow for indefinate copyright renewal, but at a cost.
That would be unconstitutional.
for example shorten copyright to 14 years. allow one free renewel. after that we should start charging copyright holders money to allow them to keep their monopoly on the copyrighted work at the publics expense. if the copyright holder views they can still make money on the copyright, then it would definately be worth some money for them to keep their copyright. but by keeping that copyright they are harming the public domain, and so the copyright holder should have to pay to renew the copyright after the first free renewal.
I understand your basic position, but I think you're being too generous. I would prefer to see formalities as a necessary prerequsite to copyright, very short terms, with more renewals (usually), and yet still overall a very short maximum term.
This would likely cause self-selection by authors incentivized by copyright (who are the only ones to which it should be granted) but would involve sufficient granularity such that they continue the self-selection process over time.
and then every 14 years the copyright holder would have to buy a new extension for each copyrighted work, but the price for this extension should be doubled. so the next extension would be $.50 then $1 then $2 and so on. i believe this to be a simple solution to many problems.
Have you done the math? You're giving away the barn. Trademarks have 10 year renewals (basically) and cost hundreds of dollars each go.
Copyrights should be reserved for authors that are treating them as a business asset. Authors that create for the love of it don't need copyrights to act as an incentive. When you're in business, the numbers you're citing are chicken feed.
One solution that's been floating around is making copyrights cost money after 14 years or so. The cost would go up exponentially. For example at 14 years $200 to renew, at 28 years $40,000, at 46 years $1.6 million. Abadonware would fall in to public domain at 14 years, the vast majority of works will fall into the public domain at 28 years. The few things that are worth millions to corporations can stay copyrighted forever.
I would object to this for several reasons. The public domain should not be a dumping ground for merely unprofitable works. It is a good thing for works to lose their copyright, and this should occur even-handedly. Also, I fear your terms are too long, and fees too low. The notion that anything could remain copyrighted forever is also unconstitutional and repulsive.
Another solution I just thought of (which is therefore probably worthless, but what the hell) is creating a distiction between copyrights and other "properties" such as characters. Copyrights could have a reasonably short term (14 yrs + one renewal for 28 yrs, total), but characters can be registered and protected indefinitely, like trademarks.
And would die at the end of the copyright term, for the reasons I've already set out. The Constitution demands that works enter the public domain. To only do so for parts of a work is unconstitutional.
Just like you can't stick an actor (or his likeness) in a film without the actor's premision
Conversely, if the length of the term is too low, investment in works will be low, and fewer works will be created
Well, you may be ignoring the fact that with shorter terms, there is a larger pool of public domain material to draw upon, which provides useful free resources, allowing the remaining investment to be more carefully spent.
E.g. if a theater company performs a copyrighted play, they have to pay for the right to use it, thus reducing how much they can spend on actors, props, sets, etc. If they perform a public domain play, it frees up that money for those things that still have a cost.
At any rate, while yours is an unusually thoughtful post for around here, I would point out that I think you're concentrating too much on creation. The goal of copyright is the net public interest, which is comprised of equal parts of 1) creation of original works, 2) creation of derivative works, and 3) unencumbered use and enjoyment of those works (i.e. no copyright).
There is a sweet spot, but it's a bit more complex.
To be honest, I wouldn't. People don't have an obligation to help one another automatically, and merely holding a patent isn't enough to create such an obligation.
A better solution for the ill poster would be to go to someplace where they can pursue their treatment.
Actually, if the copyright runs out, Disney will lose some of its trademark rights.
This is because a trademark has to indicate that a product must ultimately derive from only a single source. Also, the trademark must be something other than what the good or service it identifies is. That is to say, you could not trademark the word 'Apple' for the fruit of the same name. And note that trademarks are a different sort of animal than copyrights; they deal with different rights and subject matter.
When the relevent copyright expires, Mickey Mouse enters the public domain, and anyone can create works using him. This means that the character is generic, and that there is no longer only one source. Thus the trademark cannot survive, at least with regards to books, films, etc.
It could subsist elsewhere -- there's Peter Pan peanut butter, and Peter Pan bus services, but you can't trademark the character as to creative works.
This is more evident in the patent field (see e.g. the Shredded Wheat case) but is true no matter what. Disney is well aware of this.
Oh really? "Rightfully theirs"? I dare you to say that to the face of a musician or an artist or an author. I dare you.
I'm an artist and I agree with that statement.
Let's get this straight... you have no rights to somebody else's work
Yes you do. There's no right to compel them to create it, and no right to compel them to release it. However, there is a natural right to use it, copy it, etc. once access has been provided in some fashion.
Copyright is a temporary check on that inherent right, but it is artifical, granted by the public, and basically part of a quid pro quo intended to serve the public interest.
You don't understand copyright, as evidenced by another of your statements:
OK, so if you die and leave a car to your family, then the public gets to use it after x amount of time, right?
The thing you're missing is again, that authors don't inherently get copyrights. Copyrights are granted by government, in service to the public. And what they grant is only temporary.
So if you rent a house for a year, and die during the rental period, your heirs can enjoy the house just like you did. But only until the end of the year.
A copyright is a temporary monopoly. When it runs out, it runs out. Ultimately it is there to benefit the public, and ultimately the public gets to decide how long it will last, whether it will exist at all, and so forth.
You seem to ascribe too much importance to the author.
That's incorrect. Copyright and trademark protect different subject matter; one is not permitted to substitute for another. Additionally, trademarks are source identifiers. So when there are multiple sources for something, the trademark dies (roughly speaking).
Thus, when the copyright on Steamboat Willy expires, people will be able to create derivative works based upon it, using the Mickey Mouse character. It is possible that this will result in the loss of some of Disney's trademark rights, but that's necessary. The same situation is often seen in the patent field, where trademarks might be lost upon the end of the patent term.
It's metal, so fairly durable. It's only marginally larger than the 2.5 drive that goes inside the enclosure. It's bus powered, with two 6 pin fw ports, so that you can run pass throughs as well. (external adapters are available)
Wiebetech sells it, rebranded. I got one from Small Dog, which you can google for.
That's because it's tourists that go there. Real Bostonians wouldn't be bothered by being about to hit a car at 75 mph.
Re:You have no rights to my unpublished works.
on
P2P and TV
·
· Score: 1
What I'd like to see happen is roughly this:
Publication would be broader than it currently is, including public performance and display, and deposit of copies.
A limited form of copyright would be available for unpublished works, beginning at creation, and lasting until the sooner of a) a lack of evidenced intent to copyright and publish the work, b) a set period of time (say, 25 years), or c) publication, including filing for a copyright (which includes deposit).
A real copyright would be available for works if unpublished at the time of filing (or in certain cases, if filed for immediately after publication), with the term backdated to the filing date, and lasting 5 years, with (except in certain cases) four renewal terms of the same length, if applied for in the final year of the term before the renewal term.
This means that there would be some works that were uncopyrighted and unpublished (i.e. where the author couldn't demonstrate an intent to copyright and publish, or where the time period ran out) and some works that were uncopyrighted and published (i.e. where there was no filing for a copyright, where the filing was finally rejected, or where the term elapsed).
Obviously none of this means that you could be compelled to share your work, only that you don't get protection unless you properly do, or intend to soon. And this is fair, for why should you get protection if no one else will benefit from the work in question.
I'm the creator, shouldn't I have ultimate say in the publication of that work?
No.
For example, Kafka wanted his works destroyed when he died. No one respected this, and we're all better off as a result.
Copyright is granted by the public for the public good, not any specific individual's good. Having works created is good. Having works be in the public domain is equally as good.
If copyright is the incentive that it takes to get you to create a work, then it might be worthwhile to grant you one. But if you created that work without regard to a copyright, then it'd be foolish to give you a reward; you did it for free. Since a copyright basically provides a potential economic reward, it's authors that are looking for money that deserve copyrights. Authors doing their work for fame, or for art's sake, or whatever, don't need them in order to produce.
Personally, I think it'd be better to grant a low level of protection to works in progress or not yet published, for a brief period of time, provided that there was a bona fide intent to publish and properly register the work. But most protection should be reserved for works where the author has applied for a copyright, and fulfilled the formalities that go along with that.
This way we could avoid having people pirate manuscripts, but not grant undue protection. The author would have to seek protection, and thus only the ones that actively wanted it, and were willing to take some minor steps (fill out some forms, pay a filing fee) would get it.
Re:That's just ridiculous
on
P2P and TV
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Having it be in the public domain doesn't mean that you have to start handing out copies; it just means that you have no copyright.
It's not an unreasonable position, given that copyright is solely intended to help the public by, among other things, providing an economic incentive to authors to create and publish their works. If copyright isn't encouraging you, then it would be wasteful to give a copyright to you.
I would recommend enlarging the deposit requirement for software, cribbing heavily off of the disclosure requirement in patents.
Essentially, the author of the software would be required to deposit with the Library of Congress any and all materials and documentation that an ordinarily skilled software developer would need in order to recompile, or alter the software.
That is to say, you'd have to send in a well-commented copy of the source code, and notes as to how things work, how to compile (and with what), etc. It would be a requirement in order to get a copyright at all. Authors that don't want to do this would not get copyrights.
Since there is no reason for the copyright system to protect trade secrets, it doesn't matter that the deposit is done up front and would be publicly examinable. You could learn methods and such (which aren't protected by copyright anyway) but copyright would preclude you from using the actual code during the term.
Of course, drastically shortening the terms for works incorporating software is also a good idea.
Except that the government has always had the eminent domain power, so your house has always been subject to being taken for public purposes. All that's new is that more things are considered public (and really, that's not all that new).
Well, they're entitled to; lawyers in that sector do advertise to the degree they're able to; and payment is not a big deal given the way things are usually structured.
As it happens, my Dad is an eminent domain attorney (in the private sector) and he certainly doesn't lack for work.
Of course, I will admit that the US has a dangerously low number of lawyers and that people here don't hire lawyers to provide legal assistance nearly enough.;)
Re: Raich, it's a rather predictable case in the post-Lochner era. I don't think it took anyone familiar with commerce clause caselaw by surprise. However, it has little connection with this case, I think, since the Court didn't say that there did not need to be a public purpose, but rather that improving a tax base was a sufficient public purpose. I don't think they have the motive or power to just confiscate any damn thing whenever they please.
And I'd note that the government has exercised its eminent domain power in more or less this kind of fashion for ages. It's how we got the railroads, for example. I doubt that there will be any kind of sea change in their behavior. To reference another poster, Kelo is hardly the end of the sun and solar system as we know it.
Fair market value is whatever the value is now. This is actually pretty sensible, as I'll demonstrate.
You suggest that a _different_ parcel would be worth much more in, say, a year, once the new development has taken place.
What if it turns out that it's not, however? A downturn in the economy could stall the development project before it's completed, resulting in there being nothing more than a big hole in the ground. This will not improve property values.
Or even if property values go up in one year, what if the neighborhood generally declines, and ends up being a slum in twenty years? Why is a theoretical figure one year in the future better than an equally theoretical figure twenty years in the future?
This is why we don't use projected values; they're not really predictable, and there's no reason why one projection into some period in the future is better than any other.
The value of the land right now, however, is a lot easier to determine, with much more certainty, and is appropriate for a sale right now.
For example, in the recent case of Lawrence v. Texas, which overturned the Court's precedent in Bowers v. Hardwick, Justice Kennedy, writing for the Court, said:
Bowers was not correct when it was decided, and it is not correct today. It ought not to remain binding precedent. Bowers v. Hardwick should be and now is overruled.
The Court is comprised of people, you know. They make mistakes at times.
even what it is worth to the developer who will get it and profit from it.
That value is speculative. It could be that the developer will not profit from it, and will take a loss. That's why you can't base these numbers on what might happen in the future; no one knows, and besides, how far ahead would you look?
The appropriate figure is the fair market value now. Which is a bit more complicated than you make it out to be.
Still, a plot of dirt is a plot of dirt. If you're getting paid its price, who cares?
Slashdot Mirror
I read it. This is the bit that stands out:
So I flew to Europe, got the new pegylated medicines for about twenty-five thousand dollars of my own carefully saved money, and flew back to USA.
He's been importing into the US an article that embodies a patented invention. This is infringing. So is using them in the US as well, actually.
The logic behind that is fairly plain, for a patent in the US is pretty useless if it can be circumvented merely by importing articles from abroad which aren't allowed by the US rightsholder. Hence the import ban. There is a similar one for copyrights.
I am suggesting that he travel to Europe, or someplace, and stay there during the course of his treatment.
They're hardly liable or guilty of anything. They're doing nothing, and they've incurred no duty to help him.
anyway, what i think they should do is allow for indefinate copyright renewal, but at a cost.
That would be unconstitutional.
for example shorten copyright to 14 years. allow one free renewel. after that we should start charging copyright holders money to allow them to keep their monopoly on the copyrighted work at the publics expense. if the copyright holder views they can still make money on the copyright, then it would definately be worth some money for them to keep their copyright. but by keeping that copyright they are harming the public domain, and so the copyright holder should have to pay to renew the copyright after the first free renewal.
I understand your basic position, but I think you're being too generous. I would prefer to see formalities as a necessary prerequsite to copyright, very short terms, with more renewals (usually), and yet still overall a very short maximum term.
This would likely cause self-selection by authors incentivized by copyright (who are the only ones to which it should be granted) but would involve sufficient granularity such that they continue the self-selection process over time.
and then every 14 years the copyright holder would have to buy a new extension for each copyrighted work, but the price for this extension should be doubled. so the next extension would be $.50 then $1 then $2 and so on. i believe this to be a simple solution to many problems.
Have you done the math? You're giving away the barn. Trademarks have 10 year renewals (basically) and cost hundreds of dollars each go.
Copyrights should be reserved for authors that are treating them as a business asset. Authors that create for the love of it don't need copyrights to act as an incentive. When you're in business, the numbers you're citing are chicken feed.
One solution that's been floating around is making copyrights cost money after 14 years or so. The cost would go up exponentially. For example at 14 years $200 to renew, at 28 years $40,000, at 46 years $1.6 million. Abadonware would fall in to public domain at 14 years, the vast majority of works will fall into the public domain at 28 years. The few things that are worth millions to corporations can stay copyrighted forever.
I would object to this for several reasons. The public domain should not be a dumping ground for merely unprofitable works. It is a good thing for works to lose their copyright, and this should occur even-handedly. Also, I fear your terms are too long, and fees too low. The notion that anything could remain copyrighted forever is also unconstitutional and repulsive.
Another solution I just thought of (which is therefore probably worthless, but what the hell) is creating a distiction between copyrights and other "properties" such as characters. Copyrights could have a reasonably short term (14 yrs + one renewal for 28 yrs, total), but characters can be registered and protected indefinitely, like trademarks.
And would die at the end of the copyright term, for the reasons I've already set out. The Constitution demands that works enter the public domain. To only do so for parts of a work is unconstitutional.
Just like you can't stick an actor (or his likeness) in a film without the actor's premision
Which is a dumb idea.
Conversely, if the length of the term is too low, investment in works will be low, and fewer works will be created
Well, you may be ignoring the fact that with shorter terms, there is a larger pool of public domain material to draw upon, which provides useful free resources, allowing the remaining investment to be more carefully spent.
E.g. if a theater company performs a copyrighted play, they have to pay for the right to use it, thus reducing how much they can spend on actors, props, sets, etc. If they perform a public domain play, it frees up that money for those things that still have a cost.
At any rate, while yours is an unusually thoughtful post for around here, I would point out that I think you're concentrating too much on creation. The goal of copyright is the net public interest, which is comprised of equal parts of 1) creation of original works, 2) creation of derivative works, and 3) unencumbered use and enjoyment of those works (i.e. no copyright).
There is a sweet spot, but it's a bit more complex.
Copyright infringement is often a criminal offense. Check out 17 USC 506, for example.
To be honest, I wouldn't. People don't have an obligation to help one another automatically, and merely holding a patent isn't enough to create such an obligation.
A better solution for the ill poster would be to go to someplace where they can pursue their treatment.
That's a common misconception.
Actually, if the copyright runs out, Disney will lose some of its trademark rights.
This is because a trademark has to indicate that a product must ultimately derive from only a single source. Also, the trademark must be something other than what the good or service it identifies is. That is to say, you could not trademark the word 'Apple' for the fruit of the same name. And note that trademarks are a different sort of animal than copyrights; they deal with different rights and subject matter.
When the relevent copyright expires, Mickey Mouse enters the public domain, and anyone can create works using him. This means that the character is generic, and that there is no longer only one source. Thus the trademark cannot survive, at least with regards to books, films, etc.
It could subsist elsewhere -- there's Peter Pan peanut butter, and Peter Pan bus services, but you can't trademark the character as to creative works.
This is more evident in the patent field (see e.g. the Shredded Wheat case) but is true no matter what. Disney is well aware of this.
Oh really? "Rightfully theirs"? I dare you to say that to the face of a musician or an artist or an author. I dare you.
I'm an artist and I agree with that statement.
Let's get this straight... you have no rights to somebody else's work
Yes you do. There's no right to compel them to create it, and no right to compel them to release it. However, there is a natural right to use it, copy it, etc. once access has been provided in some fashion.
Copyright is a temporary check on that inherent right, but it is artifical, granted by the public, and basically part of a quid pro quo intended to serve the public interest.
You don't understand copyright, as evidenced by another of your statements:
OK, so if you die and leave a car to your family, then the public gets to use it after x amount of time, right?
The thing you're missing is again, that authors don't inherently get copyrights. Copyrights are granted by government, in service to the public. And what they grant is only temporary.
So if you rent a house for a year, and die during the rental period, your heirs can enjoy the house just like you did. But only until the end of the year.
A copyright is a temporary monopoly. When it runs out, it runs out. Ultimately it is there to benefit the public, and ultimately the public gets to decide how long it will last, whether it will exist at all, and so forth.
You seem to ascribe too much importance to the author.
That's incorrect. Copyright and trademark protect different subject matter; one is not permitted to substitute for another. Additionally, trademarks are source identifiers. So when there are multiple sources for something, the trademark dies (roughly speaking).
Thus, when the copyright on Steamboat Willy expires, people will be able to create derivative works based upon it, using the Mickey Mouse character. It is possible that this will result in the loss of some of Disney's trademark rights, but that's necessary. The same situation is often seen in the patent field, where trademarks might be lost upon the end of the patent term.
No way, sushimi sounds like a great idea. Half of each in the same thing! Kind of like reeces peanut butter cups.
It's metal, so fairly durable. It's only marginally larger than the 2.5 drive that goes inside the enclosure. It's bus powered, with two 6 pin fw ports, so that you can run pass throughs as well. (external adapters are available)
Wiebetech sells it, rebranded. I got one from Small Dog, which you can google for.
We all live in a Klein bottle.
That's because it's tourists that go there. Real Bostonians wouldn't be bothered by being about to hit a car at 75 mph.
What I'd like to see happen is roughly this:
Publication would be broader than it currently is, including public performance and display, and deposit of copies.
A limited form of copyright would be available for unpublished works, beginning at creation, and lasting until the sooner of a) a lack of evidenced intent to copyright and publish the work, b) a set period of time (say, 25 years), or c) publication, including filing for a copyright (which includes deposit).
A real copyright would be available for works if unpublished at the time of filing (or in certain cases, if filed for immediately after publication), with the term backdated to the filing date, and lasting 5 years, with (except in certain cases) four renewal terms of the same length, if applied for in the final year of the term before the renewal term.
This means that there would be some works that were uncopyrighted and unpublished (i.e. where the author couldn't demonstrate an intent to copyright and publish, or where the time period ran out) and some works that were uncopyrighted and published (i.e. where there was no filing for a copyright, where the filing was finally rejected, or where the term elapsed).
Obviously none of this means that you could be compelled to share your work, only that you don't get protection unless you properly do, or intend to soon. And this is fair, for why should you get protection if no one else will benefit from the work in question.
I'm the creator, shouldn't I have ultimate say in the publication of that work?
No.
For example, Kafka wanted his works destroyed when he died. No one respected this, and we're all better off as a result.
Copyright is granted by the public for the public good, not any specific individual's good. Having works created is good. Having works be in the public domain is equally as good.
If copyright is the incentive that it takes to get you to create a work, then it might be worthwhile to grant you one. But if you created that work without regard to a copyright, then it'd be foolish to give you a reward; you did it for free. Since a copyright basically provides a potential economic reward, it's authors that are looking for money that deserve copyrights. Authors doing their work for fame, or for art's sake, or whatever, don't need them in order to produce.
Personally, I think it'd be better to grant a low level of protection to works in progress or not yet published, for a brief period of time, provided that there was a bona fide intent to publish and properly register the work. But most protection should be reserved for works where the author has applied for a copyright, and fulfilled the formalities that go along with that.
This way we could avoid having people pirate manuscripts, but not grant undue protection. The author would have to seek protection, and thus only the ones that actively wanted it, and were willing to take some minor steps (fill out some forms, pay a filing fee) would get it.
Having it be in the public domain doesn't mean that you have to start handing out copies; it just means that you have no copyright.
It's not an unreasonable position, given that copyright is solely intended to help the public by, among other things, providing an economic incentive to authors to create and publish their works. If copyright isn't encouraging you, then it would be wasteful to give a copyright to you.
My understanding is that speculators still get the current price.
Who says you'd have no heart? Just keep it in a jar someplace, problem solved.
I would recommend enlarging the deposit requirement for software, cribbing heavily off of the disclosure requirement in patents.
Essentially, the author of the software would be required to deposit with the Library of Congress any and all materials and documentation that an ordinarily skilled software developer would need in order to recompile, or alter the software.
That is to say, you'd have to send in a well-commented copy of the source code, and notes as to how things work, how to compile (and with what), etc. It would be a requirement in order to get a copyright at all. Authors that don't want to do this would not get copyrights.
Since there is no reason for the copyright system to protect trade secrets, it doesn't matter that the deposit is done up front and would be publicly examinable. You could learn methods and such (which aren't protected by copyright anyway) but copyright would preclude you from using the actual code during the term.
Of course, drastically shortening the terms for works incorporating software is also a good idea.
Who said it's done? The PTO has issued a rejection. There's still an appeals process.
Or, it *was* my decision up until a few days ago.
Except that the government has always had the eminent domain power, so your house has always been subject to being taken for public purposes. All that's new is that more things are considered public (and really, that's not all that new).
Well, they're entitled to; lawyers in that sector do advertise to the degree they're able to; and payment is not a big deal given the way things are usually structured.
;)
As it happens, my Dad is an eminent domain attorney (in the private sector) and he certainly doesn't lack for work.
Of course, I will admit that the US has a dangerously low number of lawyers and that people here don't hire lawyers to provide legal assistance nearly enough.
Re: Raich, it's a rather predictable case in the post-Lochner era. I don't think it took anyone familiar with commerce clause caselaw by surprise. However, it has little connection with this case, I think, since the Court didn't say that there did not need to be a public purpose, but rather that improving a tax base was a sufficient public purpose. I don't think they have the motive or power to just confiscate any damn thing whenever they please.
And I'd note that the government has exercised its eminent domain power in more or less this kind of fashion for ages. It's how we got the railroads, for example. I doubt that there will be any kind of sea change in their behavior. To reference another poster, Kelo is hardly the end of the sun and solar system as we know it.
Fair market value is whatever the value is now. This is actually pretty sensible, as I'll demonstrate.
You suggest that a _different_ parcel would be worth much more in, say, a year, once the new development has taken place.
What if it turns out that it's not, however? A downturn in the economy could stall the development project before it's completed, resulting in there being nothing more than a big hole in the ground. This will not improve property values.
Or even if property values go up in one year, what if the neighborhood generally declines, and ends up being a slum in twenty years? Why is a theoretical figure one year in the future better than an equally theoretical figure twenty years in the future?
This is why we don't use projected values; they're not really predictable, and there's no reason why one projection into some period in the future is better than any other.
The value of the land right now, however, is a lot easier to determine, with much more certainty, and is appropriate for a sale right now.
Oh yes they can be wrong.
For example, in the recent case of Lawrence v. Texas, which overturned the Court's precedent in Bowers v. Hardwick, Justice Kennedy, writing for the Court, said:
Bowers was not correct when it was decided, and it is not correct today. It ought not to remain binding precedent. Bowers v. Hardwick should be and now is overruled.
The Court is comprised of people, you know. They make mistakes at times.
even what it is worth to the developer who will get it and profit from it.
That value is speculative. It could be that the developer will not profit from it, and will take a loss. That's why you can't base these numbers on what might happen in the future; no one knows, and besides, how far ahead would you look?
The appropriate figure is the fair market value now. Which is a bit more complicated than you make it out to be.
Still, a plot of dirt is a plot of dirt. If you're getting paid its price, who cares?