Slashdot Mirror
Orphaned Works and the Requirement To Preserve Metadata
An anonymous reader writes "Orphaned works legislation promises to open older forgotten works to new uses and audiences. Groups like ASMP think it's inevitable. But it comes with the risk of defanging protection for current work when the creator cannot be located. Photographer Mark Meyer wonders if orphaned works legislation also needs language to compel organizations like Facebook to stop their practice of stripping metadata from user content in order to keep new work from becoming orphans to begin with. Should we have laws to make stripping metadata illegal?"
The author notes that excessive copyright terms may be to blame; if that's the case why lobby for Orphaned Works legislation? On a related note, Rick Falkvinge asks if we should revisit the purpose of the copyright monopoly.
"Copyrights is actually a good thing. But like many other thing, too much a good thing can become bad, very very bad."
You're ignorant of the law. People said the same when copyright was first implemented long time ago, the "just the right amount people" have no credibility. See here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act
Copyright has been extended EVERY single time, there was not a time where copyright was NOT extended at request of corporations/greedy rich stars.
For those interested in the law and history of law relating to copyright see here:
http://homepages.law.asu.edu/~dkarjala/opposingcopyrightextension/default.htm
And this speech for good measure for all the "copyright moderates". The same thing was said long before you all were born.
http://homepages.law.asu.edu/~dkarjala/opposingcopyrightextension/commentary/MacaulaySpeeches.html
My personal view is there is not going to be a legal solution forthcoming because most human beings are not concerned/too ignorant/stupid/illiterate.
Sometimes it's more important what it's a photo of. Not everthing can be replicated.
If you don't know what photographer took an old photo of one of your dead parents should you have to make yourself a criminal in order to make copies before it can degrade?
under the current system you do.
You may not get caught but that's beside the issue. as it stands you could be sued if the photographers grandchildren ever found out that you had made copies for your family members.
but lets take your approach: if it's that important we can always just dig up the corpse and pay a photographer to make a similar one, or make it ourselves. Easy.
oh. wait. in the real world your "sollution" is os obviously stupid that I can't believe you didn't realise that it's impractical. you know it's stupid but you parrot it anyway.
Indeed any photo of anything which can't be reproduced hits the same problem. a dead person. a long gone building. a historic event.
If you can't find the guys who snapped the photo or figure out who his estate reverted to then you cannot legally make a copy. You can only leave the origional to rot and degrade taking the fine details of whatever it records with it.
you could ignore the law and make yourself a criminal which is what people already do but any law which makes everyone a criminal is a broken law.
that's why. it's a broken system.