I read the article, and all I saw was a heavily biased rant high on expletives and low on information.
Does anyone have a link to a level-headed analysis of whatever this law project REALLY says? The combination of "everything is automatically copyrighted
to SOMEONE" and "copyright terms will keep extending indefinitely as long as Disney Corp exists" has created a monster of a system where the
commons are effectively eliminated and older non-media-blockbuster works are sentenced to oblivion because the few people who care about it don't have the
resources to find out WHO is the owner in order to get permission to use them (That is, if finding an owner is at all possible, even with unlimited resources,
given the LACK OF REGISTRATION)
That is why this works are called "Orphaned" and are a problem. The best solution I heard for this is to etablish a shorter, reasonable copyright
term and allow indefinite extensions as long as the owner registers and renews the copyright periodically. That allows big media corps to keep exploiting their
blockbusters milk cows and releases to the public the vast majority of works that are not worth the cost and bother to register and/or renew.
Remember here: Copyright IS NOT OWNERSHIP according to law. Intellectual Property is a criminal oxymoron. You can't own something intangible like a
sequence of words or an image. Copyright is a temporary monopoly on the their explotation bestowed upon the creator by the government, and it was created as a
NECESSARY EVIL in order to encourage the creation of more works. The necessary counterpart of this privilege always was that eventually said works would return
to the commons. It worked fine untill billionaire inmortal corporations bought legal personhood and lobbied to extend copyright indefinitely,
NN
Does anyone have a link to a level-headed analysis of whatever this law project REALLY says? The combination of "everything is automatically copyrighted
to SOMEONE" and "copyright terms will keep extending indefinitely as long as Disney Corp exists" has created a monster of a system where the
commons are effectively eliminated and older non-media-blockbuster works are sentenced to oblivion because the few people who care about it don't have the
resources to find out WHO is the owner in order to get permission to use them (That is, if finding an owner is at all possible, even with unlimited resources,
given the LACK OF REGISTRATION)
That is why this works are called "Orphaned" and are a problem. The best solution I heard for this is to etablish a shorter, reasonable copyright
term and allow indefinite extensions as long as the owner registers and renews the copyright periodically. That allows big media corps to keep exploiting their
blockbusters milk cows and releases to the public the vast majority of works that are not worth the cost and bother to register and/or renew.
Remember here: Copyright IS NOT OWNERSHIP according to law. Intellectual Property is a criminal oxymoron. You can't own something intangible like a
sequence of words or an image. Copyright is a temporary monopoly on the their explotation bestowed upon the creator by the government, and it was created as a
NECESSARY EVIL in order to encourage the creation of more works. The necessary counterpart of this privilege always was that eventually said works would return
to the commons. It worked fine untill billionaire inmortal corporations bought legal personhood and lobbied to extend copyright indefinitely,
NN