[NetBehaviour] Fwd: Mickey Mouse Bill

[bob catchpole]

Hi Rob, 

I think we've been round the block 3 times with this already... 

Please hear me... I've been making just ONE point... that copyright registration in the States - past, present and future - is unfair and unnecessary... I've been urging you adopt the system that prevails in the rest of the world.

Listen to yourself...

> "You can register the work for copyright later."

> "And copyright registration isn't some new measure introduced by the Orphan Works Bill. It is a separate issue."

> "Potential infringers have to register the fact that they are using the work with the government."

> "Here I was referring to the new registry system for artists under the orphan works legislation, not the current  system for registering copyright."

I don't think further discussion is going to be fruitful...  in the end, as ever, you will end up with the system you deserve...

Bob

 


----- Original Message ----
From: "rob at robmyers.org" <rob at robmyers.org>
To: netbehaviour at netbehaviour.org
Sent: Tuesday, 20 May, 2008 2:00:45 PM
Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Fwd: Mickey Mouse Bill

Quoting bob catchpole <bobcatchpole at yahoo.co.uk>:

>> Automatic possession of copyright *is* in line with the rest of the world.
>
> Yes, but ONLY in the States it doesn't mean anything unless the work  
>  is registered. What kind of right is that?

It means that you can stop other people copying your work. That is  
what a copyright is, the right to control copying.

> http://photobusinessforum.blogspot.com/2008/05/orphan-works-2008-wolf-in-sheeps.html

That blog post is emotive nonsense. If white supremacists want to use  
someone's photos on a poster they aren't going to use Orphan Works  
legislation to do it.

This page covers various myths about the bill:

http://www.publicknowledge.org/issues/ow/myths-and-facts

So far it refutes the following:

1. "The bills would take away copyright protection from every work a  
visual artist ever created!"

2. "The bills would mandate registration of all visual arts in  
expensive, private registries."

3. "Unavailability of statutory damages means that owners cannot get  
compensated."

4. "The bills would institute registration formalities in  
contravention to international treaty obligations."

5. "Under the proposed new bills, since the entirely of an infringed  
work can be included in a derivative use, then the copyright of the  
derivative will amount to a copyright of the original."

6. "Any user could fake a ?diligent search? and use the orphan works  
limitation to infringe. Couldn?t a bad actor falsify the records of  
their search?"

>> The Orphan Works bill ensures that everyone still pays damages, but  
>>  that they do so fairly.
>
> That rubbish Rob, there's no chance of damages if the work isn't  
> registered. ONLY in the States!

You can register the work for copyright later.

And copyright registration isn't some new measure introduced by the  
Orphan Works Bill. It is a separate issue.

>> The registry system is optional
>
> The registry system is PERVERSE. Non-participation allows infringers  
>  to use your work with impunity.

It does not. Potential infringers have to register the fact that they  
are using the work with the government. This gives artists a  
one-stop-shop for locating people who are claiming that the work is  
out of copyright, and thereby to assert copyright against them. They  
won't have to spend all day scouring the web for infringers, the  
infrngers will have to announce themselves!

>> The registry system is optional and is designed to build on  
>> services like DACS (I forget the US equivalent)
>
> A registry system ONLY exists in the States.

Here I was referring to the new registry system for artists under the  
orphan works legislation, not the current system for registering  
copyright.

Regarding copyright registration, I have given the example of the UK,  
and an example of the benefits of registering copyright here.

And around the world musicians, photographers, illustrators and  
artists have collecting societies that they must register with in  
order to receive royalties from. ASCAP, DACS, etc.

> DACS, a designers and  artists association in the UK, is likely  
> horrified at the Orphan  Works Bill.

Administering Orphan Works would fit perfectly with DACS's current  
copyright enforcement. DACS allow artists and designers to register  
with them in order to enforce their copyright and to claim fees for  
infringement. Many serious artists and designers are members, and DACS  
hand out millions in royalties each year. They could extend this to  
cover Orphan Works very easily, just as they have extended it to cover  
artists resale right.

> Actually, the American registry system is a form of state  
> intervention in the market place that isn't tolerated anywhere else.

Copyright *is* a form of state intervention in the market place. Where  
it is against the public interest it needs reform. This is the case  
with Orphan Works.

- Rob.



_______________________________________________
NetBehaviour mailing list
NetBehaviour at netbehaviour.org
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour



      __________________________________________________________
Sent from Yahoo! Mail.
A Smarter Email http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.netbehaviour.org/pipermail/netbehaviour/attachments/20080520/88f3f7bb/attachment.htm>