[Sevv]

Originally Posted by Sellsword

Animation World Magazine

Read and reject the "Orphan Works" Bill. To put it short, if this Bill passes through congress you no longer have the right to own or make money from your own works. Companies can literally steal your art, regardless of what it is of and what form it can take, and use them for their own personal gain. This affects E-V-E-R-Y-O-N-E

If you live in the states, send letters, complain your head off, take all drastic measures.

If you don't, let everyone know and help spread the work about protecting your works.

Fight for the rights of your own work. Godspeed.

From LBR, worth the read.

[Feba]

Public Domain Enhancement Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, it's probably not going to happen.

Besides, that article is very poorly written, I wouldn't trust it half as far as I could throw it (and paper planes can be thrown pretty damn far if you make them right.)

Anyway, copyright as a whole really needs to be abolished. There are so many things about it that are just plain silly. You might as well release your work under a free license (specifically, one that forces people to keep any derivative works free too.), and help speed up the process.
______________________________
And before some content maker starts complaining; I don't want to destroy your industry. Simply restructure it, so that artists make their money from donations and commissioned works. For example, in a band? Good for you, you made a really popular album. But you're still going to need to work (read; live shows) to make money (read; tickets).

[sykoticjestr]

wow. that bill is BULLS***. it should have never been drafted. i may not be an artist but still.

honestly this bill takes away from someones ability to make money through small business, SOMETHING THIS COUNTRY THRIVES ON.

Selphiie, id be careful. your work is too good for aomeone to steal because of something as stoopid as this.

[Omgwtfbbqkitten]

Originally Posted by Feba

Besides, that article is very poorly written

So are most of your posts, your point?

He's blowing the whistle on a bullshit bill, as he should be. As the man said, its apathy that lets these bills get by unnoticed. Its also how such bills got passed before, regardless of the fact they may have eventually been cut or overturned due to them not being terribly constitutional.

The problem is that bills of this nature keep happening and we should be mad as hell they even exist to start with.

[Tsrwedge]

Before I comment further, is the Wikipedia article about it neutral or is it slanted one way or the other?

[Sevv]

Originally Posted by Tsrwedge

Before I comment further, is the Wikipedia article about it neutral or is it slanted one way or the other?

You always have to read articles understanding there is always bias. I haven't read it all yet because I don't have the time, but there is never a truly unbiased article.

[Tsrwedge]

Originally Posted by Sevv

You always have to read articles understanding there is always bias. I haven't read it all yet because I don't have the time, but there is never a truly unbiased article.

Well, yeah. I meant close enough to center to get a decent feel for the bill. I ask that because reading that Wiki article and the summaries of the article linked in the OP (site's db went down flaming), it almost sounds as if there are two separate bills being discussed here.

I'll go ahead and make an ass of myself anyway. Judging from the Wikipedia article, this is actually a Good Thing. The first 50 years of an items copyright period work identically to how things currently are. Then at 50 years, and every ten years thereafter until the end of the copyright term (95 years I think), a single dollar must be paid to maintain the copyright. If the dollar is not paid by a deadline, the work is irrevocably released into the public domain.

The single dollar tax is meant as a way to keep the chain of ownership clear -- it's not intended as a way to break anyone's bank.

I do believe the article in the OP might be a piece of astroturf if it has been accurately summarized. The MPAA has gone on record as opposing this bill, and I certainly can't put that beyond them.

[DieselBoy09]

Originally Posted by Sevv

You always have to read articles understanding there is always bias. I haven't read it all yet because I don't have the time, but there is never a truly unbiased article.

I think there are a few, but they're rare. Here, I'll write you one real quickly.

"Gary Smith, a resident from Dallas Texas was shot today at the corner of Sycamore and Eve. The bullet passed through his skull and exited out the other side. When a medical team arrived, Gary was found deceased. The authorities are still looking for suspects."

You could call it more of a "report" but you can elaborate on the instance and still keep it free from bias. Some things can be stated or written about purely objectively, but they rarely are.

[Pai Pai Master]

This is quite possibly the most absurd piece of legislation ever proposed by anyone.

[Malevolent]

Just remember your congress man or woman doesn't care what right or wrong constitutional or unconstitutional.

[Feba]

Originally Posted by StarvingArtist

This is a gross misinterpretation of the proposed bill.

Which is yet another of the reasons this "bullshit bill" doesn't matter-- it doesn't really exist.

[DakAttack]

Originally Posted by Feba

Which is yet another of the reasons this "bullshit bill" doesn't matter-- it doesn't really exist.

Nor does the art.

[Omgwtfbbqkitten]

This is a gross misinterpretation of the proposed bill. The target is to limit liability for artists, educators and others who make a “reasonably diligent search” to find a copyright holder but cannot. It's designed primarily for museums, libraries, and "keepers of heritage" institutions to safely use copyrighted works if they are unable to find the copyright owner to acquire a license.

Example being an institution using a photograph after attempting to find the original owner but unable to do so. If the original owner after some time discovers this usage and proceeds to seek compensation, the institution would be protected "if" they can show that they have made a “reasonably diligent search". It would reduce their liability.

The problem is, the current state of the proposed bill heavily favors the publishing and library institutions and does very little to protect the rights of the copyright holders. In a worst case scenario, someone who uses a copyrighted work without securing a license can claim they tried to find the original owner but was unable to. The owner at best would only be able to retrieve compensation of the original licensing, but no further damages or loss.

Bolded for emphasis on lack of consistancy.

No one here is misunderstanding the issue, save for the people saying "its not a big deal" or "it doesn't exist."

Its just a really clever way of not crediting the artist, which would inevitably give way to corporate abuse, just like "protecting the children" is a really clever way to start censoring what game developers do and would be abused by politicians inevitiable.

No kind of abuse to speech or copyright protection should ever be taken lightly. I'm always disappointed to see there are people that do take it lightly, especially disappointed when they come from a nation where free speech is the cornerstone of every other right they have. Let expression get violated and nothing else is safe.

[Feba]

Explain, exactly, how your copyright wearing off after 50 years is going to harm the artist. And explain how this harm 50 years from now is going to outweigh the benefits to society in general by allowing your materials to be used for educational purposes.


Also, how the hell can you talk about free speech and copyright at the same time? They're practically opposite concepts-- free speech is about being able to speak what you wish, and copyright is about being able to claim you're the first to come up with a certain idea. Hell, look at that HD-DVD key thing, they basically claimed to own *a number*. Considering how all copyrighted works can now be stored in binary form, aside from 3D works such as statues and furniture, that's really all they are.

Removing or weakening copyright protection makes free speech stronger. First of all, it allows ideas to spread more freely, without fear of punishment. Secondly, it doesn't force people to pay to hear opinions and ideas. Third, when the focus shifts from corporations to communities, people can more easily be exposed to literature and things that would never be on display (or even sold) in a store.

[assumedvigilance]

this country is just full of silly bastards isnt it?