craftingagreenworld.com — Currently, any work you produce is automatically protected under copyright law for life. The Shawn Bentley Orphan Works Act, if allowed to become law, will drastically weaken and complicate rights of individuals to pursue damages for copyright infringement. This legislation claims good intentions, yet has been drafted with dangerous loopholes.
Jun 25, 2008 View in Crawl 4
spudsterJun 26, 2008
What I don't understand is that this bill is lLOOSENING copyright restrictions. If I'm not mistaken, Digg users have been fighting against copyright for years now (DMCA, etc.) Now that a bill comes out that increases the rights of consumers, everyone has suddenly become pro-copyright again...
angelaqJun 26, 2008
Clearly spoken as someone who never created anything worth stealing in his entire life. If somebody looks around and doesn't find my website, that means they can republish all my stuff and only pay me if I sue at my own expense.
pitlordJun 26, 2008
The law specifies PRIVATE registries, not "public." The law also doesn't stop those registries from charging whatever fee they choose to register a work with them.This law ALSO turns the "due diligence" required for anyone who wants to steal someone else's work into a joke.If they DON'T find your work registered in ONE registry, they do not have to pay to use your work. This forces artists and creators to register EVERY work with EVERY private registry or risk having that work stolen.
pitlordJun 26, 2008
I don't trust hippies any more than I trust corporations. They are both radical extremes of the spectrum and they both only have their own interests at heart.
jonthebishopJun 26, 2008
The database would be free and online. Not registering wouldn't revoke any of you rights, just like the copyright office. If anything it will make it easier to protect your works.
Closed AccountJun 27, 2008
Suuuure it is.
gabebearJun 27, 2008
Specifically you are wrong because the bill states "The limitations on monetary and injunctive relief under this section shall not be available to an infringer for infringements resulting from fixation of a work in or on a useful article that is offered for sale or other distribution to the public." So sue away if they slap your work on a product for sale rather than include it in an anthology or use it for academic purposes.More generally you are wrong because the bill states if the infriger "fails to negotiate reasonable compensation in good faith with the owner of the infringed copyright; or fails to render payment of reasonable compensation in a reasonably timely manner" then "the infringer is subject to all the remedies provided in section 502 through 505, subject to section 412."Section 502 = Injunction ReliefSection 505 = Attorney FeesThis bill doesn't look bad...
Closed AccountJun 29, 2008
What if I claimed that I did a reasonable and diligent search to try to establish who the owner of Mickey was?
keeganspeckJul 1, 2008
Oh jeez, well that's not good. Thanks.