Thanks for posting this Bupaje. To me the arguements for caution still outweigh those for dismissal. If nothing else, I find this arguement much more organized and coherant than the dismissal. I think this bit sums it up pretty well. Copyright isn't about facilitating distribution. It's about protecting the author's rights in the face of distribution. The complete opposite of these 'orphaned works' gambits.Despite 127 pages of the Orphan Works Report, you need only common sense to tell you this: The primary goal of copyright law is not to make creators’ work available to others. If it were, there’d be no need for copyright law at all: everything would be free for anyone to use. Copyright law exists primarily to protect the property rights of creators and secondarily, to extend the benefits of the creator’s work to the public. It does this by defining specific, limited exceptions to the creator’s exclusive license. In doing so, the law promotes the useful arts and provides certainty to users and creators alike. Invert the law and you invert the only way it can benefit society.
I still ask, who stands to benefit the most???
Is it the individual, who needs these 'orphaned works' available with reduced risk of litigation? Or is it large commercial interests who can consume more 'orphaned work' in an hour than any individual will in a year? How much do you think it is worth to them to avoid licensing untold amounts of art?
This would fit the same pattern as those who undercut any artist.
