Mad as hell

[Kill Boy]

http://mag.awn.com/?&article_no=3605

[Lord_Dagon]

This article still pissess me off, mostly as it doesn't list sources, or explain any of its points. The whole things seems to be written only to inflame those who read it.

To be honest, it seems this guy read Larry Lessig's proposal for Orphaned Works and then misunderstood everything. Considering I can't bring up pages 2 or 3 of his article I can't verify this.

This is Lessig's proposal,

"In response to the report issued by the Copyright Office, Larry Lessig, a law professor at Stanford University, clarified that “The Copyright Office’s report is brilliant...Its proposal is less brilliant." He considered his option as "a kind of copyright maintenance procedure." It differed from the Copyright Office’s proposal in three critical ways:

    * It would apply only to old works, not to new works. For works after enactment, copyright owners would get a 14-year grace period where they need not worry at all about any orphan work requirement. For work published between 1978 and today, there would be no orphan work requirement until 2021. And for work published before 1978, (in a time when formalities were the norm), there would be no requirement until 2012. [5]

    * It would apply to published “United States works” only, not to foreign works or unpublished work. [6]

    * The requirement it would impose after the 14-year delay is registration. The registration would not be with the Copyright Office, but rather a private registrar approved by the office."

That last line, "private registrar" being the one that seems to have gotten him on the Big Business kick. Anyone familar with Lessig, Creative Commons and the like would know he is rather far from being a shill for those types of groups.

If thats good or not, I'm not going to say. What it doesn't seem to do though is advocate the removal of all your copyrights unless you register. It would give you 14 years in fact to go and do so.

Yeah, I can understand why he's upset, and I don't have anything against him if he thinks Lessig's proposal is wrong. What pissess me off, is the way in which the article is written.

[Edit]
Here is a link that gives more information on Lessig's view. Copyright Blog

[Acacia]

I can't see the article.

cliff notes, plz

[Web~Janitor]

Since I don't care who those people are, I spent some time reading through the actual proposals of the copyright office. From what I follow of them, I find them hostile and ridiculous.

It's absurd that America would expect me, a foreigner, to pay an American organization* so that my works aren't stolen by Americans and resold in America (and then, also internationally, perhaps in my home country, because with the internet everything available in America is now available elsewhere)
 
Perhaps if a number of small nations, such as say Slovakia, Turkey, Jamaica band together and create similar schemes wherein works that make it into their country, seem to have no local author and aren't registered in their local systems, are then regarded as public domain and free for reuse.

It would be a huge cash draw for the country because every time a company wanted to make sure it's own works are copyrighted, it would have to pay into that countries' national scheme as well.

Of course, if every country and sovereign state in the world did that, at a dollar (or more) a pop it would cost hundreds of dollars to copyright even a single item and would bankrupt small companies in the business of creating content, and make the idea of personal copyright for anything but the ultrarich a joke.

The big media companies will naturally be burdened but I expect they'll survive. And of course, all these small web 2.0 types that seem to have hijacked the public discourse will thrive with a rich infusion of copyright free work to steal nonstop, so they continue making money out of other people and their stuff.



*which is ultimately what the copyright office is proposing,  albeit indirectly, because without paying an organization I'd have no way to really reliably monitor American usages until they hit the internet, by which then it would be too late.

[Alessa]

illustratorspartnership@cnymail.com

http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml

Those of you who are american, contact your elected official.  We're smart enough to read the fine print, aren't we?

Those of you who aren't american, pick an elected official.  Other than Bush, he can't read print.

[Kitsune Fury]

illustratorspartnership@cnymail.com

http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml

Those of you who are american, contact your elected official.  We're smart enough to read the fine print, aren't we?

Those of you who aren't american, pick an elected official.  Other than Bush, he can't read print.

1 Fail for thread necro.
2 Fails for being reactionary. :/
3 fails for falling into the author of the article's trap. You have been trolled.

TRIPLE FAIL

Congrats. And three posts in already.

[Rosery]

1 Fail for thread necro.
2 Fails for being reactionary. :/
3 fails for falling into the author of the article's trap. You have been trolled.

TRIPLE FAIL

Congrats. And three posts in already.

....*Flails,Runs at,Pounces Kit and snuggles him to death*

*Should note this is for finally pointing out teh fail that is the previous poster.*

[Kitsune Fury]

....*Flails,Runs at,Pounces Kit and snuggles him to death*

*Should note this is for finally pointing out teh fail that is the previous poster.*

...finally? what?...

anyway, mistakes have been made. This is what people get for not reading or analysing what people say properly.

But the original article KB posted to with righteous, if misguided, vitriol and outrage, is proof that with enough capital letters, and enough words, even the most STUPID person can seem smart and right, on the internet.

[Kill Boy]

*coughs* I might have got caught up in the moment.

[Alessa]

*slaps Rusti in the mouth*

Hence the [SIZE=10]read the fine print.[/SIZE]

Try it sometime.

[Kitsune Fury]

*slaps Rusti in the mouth*

Hence the [SIZE=10]read the fine print.[/SIZE]

Try it sometime.

Either there is a failure to communicate here, or one of us is missing the point.

The original article, the one KB posted, is flawed, horridly, as Robert said. It's not even really fact based.

What fine print are you referring to?

[Cattie]

I think she's saying, "Before we get all in a tizzy over second-hand reporting of something that may or may not get put into law, we should review it for ourselves and come to an actual educated response."

[Soja]

I've since decided to stop listening to politicians and reporters alike and read the actual bills and propositions myself.

Of course, most documents of the sort are hellacious reading-comprehension nightmares choked to the hilt with legalese and eleven syllable words that have been used maybe once in a time when classical literature was merely "novel."