Comments on: A Double Standard on Orphan Works? http://techliberation.com/2007/01/23/a-double-standard-on-orphan-works/ Keeping politicians' hands off the Net & everything else related to technology Tue, 14 Feb 2012 19:26:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: enigma_foundry http://techliberation.com/2007/01/23/a-double-standard-on-orphan-works/comment-page-1/#comment-36890 enigma_foundry Thu, 25 Jan 2007 04:42:44 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/01/23/a-double-standard-on-orphan-works/#comment-36890 <p>Interesting. I think the case could be made for shortening the initial copyright term, to say 28 years, and then after that extending it only for those who register their works for say an addition 28 years.</p> <p>The issue that everyone is struggling with here is uncertainty, and it would seem reasonable that for works younger than a certain age, the default assumption would be that a work is copyrighted. Then for works older than say 28 years, the default assumption would be that a work is no longer copyrighted, unless it is registered in a database, which could be made available via the web.</p> <p>This seems like a good compromise.</p> Interesting. I think the case could be made for shortening the initial copyright term, to say 28 years, and then after that extending it only for those who register their works for say an addition 28 years.

The issue that everyone is struggling with here is uncertainty, and it would seem reasonable that for works younger than a certain age, the default assumption would be that a work is copyrighted. Then for works older than say 28 years, the default assumption would be that a work is no longer copyrighted, unless it is registered in a database, which could be made available via the web.

This seems like a good compromise.

]]> By: eee_eff http://techliberation.com/2007/01/23/a-double-standard-on-orphan-works/comment-page-1/#comment-55642 eee_eff Thu, 25 Jan 2007 04:42:44 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/01/23/a-double-standard-on-orphan-works/#comment-55642 <p>Interesting. I think the case could be made for shortening the initial copyright term, to say 28 years, and then after that extending it only for those who register their works for say an addition 28 years.<br><br>The issue that everyone is struggling with here is uncertainty, and it would seem reasonable that for works younger than a certain age, the default assumption would be that a work is copyrighted. Then for works older than say 28 years, the default assumption would be that a work is no longer copyrighted, unless it is registered in a database, which could be made available via the web.<br><br>This seems like a good compromise.</p> Interesting. I think the case could be made for shortening the initial copyright term, to say 28 years, and then after that extending it only for those who register their works for say an addition 28 years.

The issue that everyone is struggling with here is uncertainty, and it would seem reasonable that for works younger than a certain age, the default assumption would be that a work is copyrighted. Then for works older than say 28 years, the default assumption would be that a work is no longer copyrighted, unless it is registered in a database, which could be made available via the web.

This seems like a good compromise.

]]> By: Noel Le http://techliberation.com/2007/01/23/a-double-standard-on-orphan-works/comment-page-1/#comment-36889 Noel Le Wed, 24 Jan 2007 16:02:46 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/01/23/a-double-standard-on-orphan-works/#comment-36889 <p>My self-correction Jim Lippard. My history is a bit dusty, but there were papers tying the Copyright Clause to certain values in the new republic: "life, liberty and property." In any case, maybe I'm just a loyal fan of Locke and Hegel:)</p> My self-correction Jim Lippard. My history is a bit dusty, but there were papers tying the Copyright Clause to certain values in the new republic: “life, liberty and property.” In any case, maybe I’m just a loyal fan of Locke and Hegel:)

]]> By: Noel Le http://techliberation.com/2007/01/23/a-double-standard-on-orphan-works/comment-page-1/#comment-55641 Noel Le Wed, 24 Jan 2007 16:02:46 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/01/23/a-double-standard-on-orphan-works/#comment-55641 <p>My self-correction Jim Lippard. My history is a bit dusty, but there were papers tying the Copyright Clause to certain values in the new republic: "life, liberty and property." In any case, maybe I'm just a loyal fan of Locke and Hegel:)</p> My self-correction Jim Lippard. My history is a bit dusty, but there were papers tying the Copyright Clause to certain values in the new republic: “life, liberty and property.” In any case, maybe I’m just a loyal fan of Locke and Hegel:)

]]> By: Jim Lippard http://techliberation.com/2007/01/23/a-double-standard-on-orphan-works/comment-page-1/#comment-36888 Jim Lippard Wed, 24 Jan 2007 14:58:03 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/01/23/a-double-standard-on-orphan-works/#comment-36888 <p>Can you point to some references about how the Founding Fathers considered copyright a matter of natural right? I'm only familiar with the reference to copyright in the Constitution, where a utilitarian ground is supplied ("To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts"), and the right is not permanent but a right secured "for limited Times to Authors and Inventors."</p> Can you point to some references about how the Founding Fathers considered copyright a matter of natural right? I’m only familiar with the reference to copyright in the Constitution, where a utilitarian ground is supplied (“To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts”), and the right is not permanent but a right secured “for limited Times to Authors and Inventors.”

]]> By: Jim Lippard http://techliberation.com/2007/01/23/a-double-standard-on-orphan-works/comment-page-1/#comment-55640 Jim Lippard Wed, 24 Jan 2007 14:58:03 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/01/23/a-double-standard-on-orphan-works/#comment-55640 <p>Can you point to some references about how the Founding Fathers considered copyright a matter of natural right? I'm only familiar with the reference to copyright in the Constitution, where a utilitarian ground is supplied ("To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts"), and the right is not permanent but a right secured "for limited Times to Authors and Inventors."</p> Can you point to some references about how the Founding Fathers considered copyright a matter of natural right? I’m only familiar with the reference to copyright in the Constitution, where a utilitarian ground is supplied (“To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts”), and the right is not permanent but a right secured “for limited Times to Authors and Inventors.”

]]> By: Noel Le http://techliberation.com/2007/01/23/a-double-standard-on-orphan-works/comment-page-1/#comment-36887 Noel Le Wed, 24 Jan 2007 06:13:13 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/01/23/a-double-standard-on-orphan-works/#comment-36887 <p>Tim, I'm expected something other than this post, especially from someone like you, a prolific writer.</p> <p>First, authors can selectively waive copyright restrictions upon production of a work, so its not quite right to blame them for shifting costs to efforts such as those at Google- unless of course, you believe Google is more important than writers.</p> <p>Second, the 1976 Copyright Act codification of automatic copyright assignment is consistent with the dual nature of copyright policy- its one of the few aspects of copyright law that reflects a natural rights approach to appropriating from one's works. Copyright was conceived by our founders as both a natural rights and utilitarien construct (as opposed to patents, which the great American, Thomas Jefferson, wavered on but ultimately agreed was necessary to the extent that utilitarien goals would be met).</p> <p>Third, I agree with you that the issue of orphan works is problematic. However, I don't see the issue being so much as a problem for copyright law as a market opportunity for copyright clearinghouses.</p> Tim, I’m expected something other than this post, especially from someone like you, a prolific writer.

First, authors can selectively waive copyright restrictions upon production of a work, so its not quite right to blame them for shifting costs to efforts such as those at Google- unless of course, you believe Google is more important than writers.

Second, the 1976 Copyright Act codification of automatic copyright assignment is consistent with the dual nature of copyright policy- its one of the few aspects of copyright law that reflects a natural rights approach to appropriating from one’s works. Copyright was conceived by our founders as both a natural rights and utilitarien construct (as opposed to patents, which the great American, Thomas Jefferson, wavered on but ultimately agreed was necessary to the extent that utilitarien goals would be met).

Third, I agree with you that the issue of orphan works is problematic. However, I don’t see the issue being so much as a problem for copyright law as a market opportunity for copyright clearinghouses.

]]> By: Noel Le http://techliberation.com/2007/01/23/a-double-standard-on-orphan-works/comment-page-1/#comment-55639 Noel Le Wed, 24 Jan 2007 06:13:13 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/01/23/a-double-standard-on-orphan-works/#comment-55639 <p>Tim, I'm expected something other than this post, especially from someone like you, a prolific writer.<br><br>First, authors can selectively waive copyright restrictions upon production of a work, so its not quite right to blame them for shifting costs to efforts such as those at Google- unless of course, you believe Google is more important than writers.<br><br>Second, the 1976 Copyright Act codification of automatic copyright assignment is consistent with the dual nature of copyright policy- its one of the few aspects of copyright law that reflects a natural rights approach to appropriating from one's works. Copyright was conceived by our founders as both a natural rights and utilitarien construct (as opposed to patents, which the great American, Thomas Jefferson, wavered on but ultimately agreed was necessary to the extent that utilitarien goals would be met).<br><br>Third, I agree with you that the issue of orphan works is problematic. However, I don't see the issue being so much as a problem for copyright law as a market opportunity for copyright clearinghouses.</p> Tim, I’m expected something other than this post, especially from someone like you, a prolific writer.

First, authors can selectively waive copyright restrictions upon production of a work, so its not quite right to blame them for shifting costs to efforts such as those at Google- unless of course, you believe Google is more important than writers.

Second, the 1976 Copyright Act codification of automatic copyright assignment is consistent with the dual nature of copyright policy- its one of the few aspects of copyright law that reflects a natural rights approach to appropriating from one’s works. Copyright was conceived by our founders as both a natural rights and utilitarien construct (as opposed to patents, which the great American, Thomas Jefferson, wavered on but ultimately agreed was necessary to the extent that utilitarien goals would be met).

Third, I agree with you that the issue of orphan works is problematic. However, I don’t see the issue being so much as a problem for copyright law as a market opportunity for copyright clearinghouses.

]]>