brianpuccio.net

it's dot com

Orphan Works Act Of 2008

Date: Friday, July 4, 2008 - 12:30pm
Keywords: GPL, open source, patents trademarks and copyright, fair use, United States
Links: 239 reads

I first heard of the Orphan Works Act of 2008 by way of an open source advocate voicing concerns regarding the lack of diligence allowing companies to ignore the GPL. While this is could be an issue, I think if a party fails to do something as simple as perform a google search and see it listed at the top, a judge would probably hold that the searcher didn't perform a diligent search, especially since computer stuff more often than not found in the Internet. Besides, there are plenty of GPL violations that occur now. And considering most software has in it (either in the code or the application itself) some sort of documentation that points to the software's website. I don't think there's a judge who would find a company who ignored that sort of obvious information as a company who performed a diligent search.

So I decided to find out more about this bill and the second google hit was a petition to stop the Orphan Works Act of 2008 by some nutjobs who think copyright should last, quite literally, for eternity:

We believe it is the unalienable right of the individual artist or person to decide how their photographs, illustrations, videos, music or paintings are used for eternity.

Sorry, but copyright shouldn't last for 50 years after the death of the creator, it shouldn't last for 70 years after the death of the author and it certainly shouldn't last for eternity. The ultimate purpose of copyright (which is a time-limited monopoly on the rights to copy (or otherwise reproduce) a work) is not to provide for the authors of the works, but rather to enrich society as a whole. As a way to encourage individuals to create works, there needed to be some financial benefit, so the government granted the author a time period of 14 years (renewable for an additional 14) during which the author would hold a monopoly on the right to copy the work. After that, the author had to either come up with a new work, or get another job because the work became public domain, because the goal all along was to give society free access to the largest amount of works possible.

Now that's not to say I'm in favor of the Orphan Works Act of 2008. I'm not. But I am against the 7336 people who have signed this online petition. And not only these people, but other people who run around claiming that this bill "destroys the copyright validity of all artists. And then go on to claim that the Bushites are the anti-christ:

Who or what is the motivating power behind such a horror as this bill?
Guess! Fascism, Neo-cons? You see, as I warned you long ago and forever since, The Bushites ARE the anti-Christ. They realize that much financial and critical support comes from the Progressives and Liberals in the arts and the vast majority of artists of all sorts ARE Progressives and Liberals. When God or nature bestows upon a man, woman, or child a great creative gift, with that gift most often includes the sensitivity it takes to recognize the vagaries and the subtlety in nature and art. Artists of every sort are keen observers, because they have to be, and they are trained to be and by their very gift they are born ro be so.

The Anti-Christ forces, which supplant merely being The Anti-Christ, but are in reality Anti-God, Anti-Spiritual giftedness, anti-prophet, but pro-illicit profit. Their goal is the utter destruction of the God-Gifted artists. They hate and hold on contempt those favored with gifts, which includes athletes. If you will note, they have gone after with scant evidence all members of the arts and sports with lawsuits and skimpy, fringe, phonied, trumped up indictments, many of which I have correctly called as failing, here in these pages in many articles. They are aided and abetted by those who attack the messengers rather than perpetrators.

I share the position of Adam Huttler regarding the Orphan Works Act of 2008 in that I don't know if the bill is either good or bad (or a little bit of Column A and a little bit of Column B). Huttler does make some interesting points, though, including that authors are still entitled to compensation even from someone protected by the Orphan Works Act and that registration isn't compulsory.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <pre> <blockquote> <img> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <del> <ins>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

Recent Photos

I've got several hundred photos offline that I've been meaning to upload, just never got around to it.

  • Adam Savage At HOPE
  • Adam Savage Talks About His Dodo (And His OCD) At HOPE
  • Adam Savage At HOPE
  • Kevin Mitnick Shows Us How To Unmask Blocked Caller IDs At HOPE
  • Kevin Mitnick At HOPE
  • Kevin Mitnick At HOPE
  • Kevin Mitnick At HOPE
  • Kevin Mitnick At HOPE
  • Kevin Mitnick And Emmanuel Goldstein At HOPE
  • Kevin Mitnick And Emmanuel Goldstein At HOPE
  • Kevin Mitnick And Emmanuel Goldstein At HOPE
  • Steven Rambam, PI, Talks About Privacy And How You Have None At HOPE
  • Algormor Shows Off Bagcam Footage At HOPE
  • Ray Beckerman Discuesses Ways To Fight Back Against The RIAA At HOPE
  • RenderMan Discuss Wireless Vulnerabilites At HOPE
  • Gillian Andrews Talks About OLPC At HOPE
  • Phil Lapsley Discusses FOIA At HOPE
  • Virgirl Griffith Shows Off WikiiWatcher 2 At HOPE To A Standing Room Only Crowd
  • Virgirl Griffith Shows Off WikiiWatcher 2 At HOPE
  • Virgirl Griffith Shows Off WikiiWatcher 2 At HOPE

Recent Blogs

Recent Excerpts

User login