There Is No "Next Great Copyright Act", Remain Calm

Lirodon writes: A YouTube video has gone viral, particularly around the art community (and the subsection of the art community populated by the same type of people who tend to spread these around to begin with), making bold claims that a revision to U.S. copyright law is being considered, with a particular focus on orphan works. Among other things, this video claims that it would require all works to be registered with a for-profit registry to be protected, that unregistered works would be "orphaned" and be usable by "good faith infringers" and allow others to make derivative works that they would own entirely. Thankfully, this is all just hyperbole proliferated by a misinterpretation of a report on orphan works by the U.S. Copyright Office, as Graphic Policy explains.

Comments

Shocking.

[NeutronCowboy]

Random Youtube video found to be distorting facts and be less than insightful. I never saw THAT coming.

Re:Shocking.

[ArmoredDragon]

You seriously think the Republicans will reform copyright if they get in office? If they do, it'll be in favour of their corporate overlords, and We The People will git shafted even more.

I think they're a little more likely to. Freshwater economists (who the Republicans favor) are generally against long copyrights and protectionism/mercantilism of any form (Milton Friedman was one among several who signed a letter urging congress to vote against the Mickey Mouse Protection Act, saying that it's a "no brainer" that it shouldn't be passed.)

Keynesian (aka salt water) economists, which Democrats often favor, tend to like that kind of thing however, along with other protectionist measures (e.g. tariffs, "make work" projects, and the like.) Also, the Democrats are basically owned by Hollywood.

Re:Shocking.

[The Real Dr John]

I meant corporations are pulling the strings in both parties. The corporations are pretty much in control now, just ask any politician who is grubbing for money on Wall Street. I see virtually no difference between the two major parties at this point. They spout different red meat rhetoric, but they bow to the same master.

WHUT

[Anonymous Coward]

"Thankfully, this is all just hyperbole proliferated by a misinterpretation of a report on orphan works by the U.S. Copyright Office"

Why 'thankfully'?

In Fairness To Chicken Little...

[IonOtter]

The last 20 years of copyright law has been a vast collection of Evil Genius Plots To Take Over The World, with no small number successfully being implemented.

People can be forgiven for believing the worst without checking the facts.

Re:The next great copyright scam

[suutar]

but if it doesn't make that back in 14 years, is it ever going to?

Re:The next great copyright scam

[Oligonicella]

"... because the typical person does not benefit." Utter bullshit. Anyone creative enough can obtain a copyright, patent or trademark and benefit from it. If someone writes a book, without copyright protection the first lazy moron who comes along can take it and publish it as their own.

"People get paid by the fact that only they can create a particular piece of art or item, up against true competition." This time shallow bullshit. Without protections, the moment any creative item is available a *corporation* could simply abscond with it, out produce the individual and take it from them.

Same old screed from those who can't create - "I want access to yours for nothing."

Re:In favor of paid copyright protection

[Anonymous Coward]

We already have a system where copyright is extended indefinitely in exchange for money. It's called lobbying.