4 ms·

The entire premise of orphan works is a scam. The issue is not even of releasing the recordings for all to enjoy. It's of a company or organization wanting to s

by bugsy 16y ago

The entire premise of orphan works is a scam. The issue is not even of releasing the recordings for all to enjoy. It's of a company or organization wanting to sell works still in copyright without obtaining permission from the legitimate owners, compensating them, or even having to bother trying to find them. Works owned by large corporations are never orphaned. It's only the small independent artists and their heirs that get shafted by this scam.

thristian 16y ago
That's only because large corporations have so much existential inertia - it takes a long while to build a corporation up, and they tend to sink slowly enough that they leave evidence of where their IP goes. That said, it's not too hard for corporate IP to become orphaned. A company makes a bad investment, gets bought out by another company that gets bought out by a third, and records get lost.
GiraffeNecktie 16y ago
The article clearly states that a reasonable effort must be made to locate the owner of the work AND if the owner eventually comes forward that they would be able to claim a reasonable compensation. They wouldn't, however, be able to seek huge damages. Seems like common sense to me.
- bugsy 16y ago
  Reasonable efforts is not defined. Spending 5 minutes on the internet googling their name is a reasonable effort. So is spending 1 minute. So is spending 0 minutes and saying you tried your best. But if I decide to reprint Disney works I get my ass sued off. You guys support shafting small independent artists but have no problem with protections intact for large corporations with armies of lawyers. "Claiming compensation" is another scam. It is set up as an "artists rights organization" taking royalties from the publisher. They then spend the money. If the artist later shows up, engages a lawyer to prove they are his works, and signs a contract with the rights organization giving up control over his work, then he gets to receive a percent out of what they have collected, which was a minuscule portion of the publisher's profit to begin with. Why the fuck should the artist have to give up their rights to claim royalties for works they never authorized the publisher to sell? It's completely outrageous and those supporting this corporate fuckover of little guys are immoral assholes who should be shot in the head.
  - VBprogrammer 16y ago
    If you wish to use language like that in a way which does not enhance or support any point you are trying to make then please make your way to the comments section of digg or reddit. The rest of the grown-ups here don't need to hear it.

by bugsy 16y ago

thristian 16y ago

That's only because large corporations have so much existential inertia - it takes a long while to build a corporation up, and they tend to sink slowly enough that they leave evidence of where their IP goes. That said, it's not too hard for corporate IP to become orphaned. A company makes a bad investment, gets bought out by another company that gets bought out by a third, and records get lost.

GiraffeNecktie 16y ago

The article clearly states that a reasonable effort must be made to locate the owner of the work AND if the owner eventually comes forward that they would be able to claim a reasonable compensation. They wouldn't, however, be able to seek huge damages. Seems like common sense to me.

bugsy 16y ago
Reasonable efforts is not defined. Spending 5 minutes on the internet googling their name is a reasonable effort. So is spending 1 minute. So is spending 0 minutes and saying you tried your best. But if I decide to reprint Disney works I get my ass sued off. You guys support shafting small independent artists but have no problem with protections intact for large corporations with armies of lawyers. "Claiming compensation" is another scam. It is set up as an "artists rights organization" taking royalties from the publisher. They then spend the money. If the artist later shows up, engages a lawyer to prove they are his works, and signs a contract with the rights organization giving up control over his work, then he gets to receive a percent out of what they have collected, which was a minuscule portion of the publisher's profit to begin with. Why the fuck should the artist have to give up their rights to claim royalties for works they never authorized the publisher to sell? It's completely outrageous and those supporting this corporate fuckover of little guys are immoral assholes who should be shot in the head.
- VBprogrammer 16y ago
  If you wish to use language like that in a way which does not enhance or support any point you are trying to make then please make your way to the comments section of digg or reddit. The rest of the grown-ups here don't need to hear it.