5 ms·

I'm not clear on what's supposed to be so bad about this law. The article fails to explain that the intent of the law is to deal with the problem of orphaned w

I'm not clear on what's supposed to be so bad about this law. The article fails to explain that the intent of the law is to deal with the problem of orphaned works. It creates a process whereby out-of-print works can have have their copyright seized by the state, in order to make them available in digital form. Out-of-print works with a copyright date prior to 2001 are to be entered into a publicly available list. Listed works can be challenged for 6 months. Works that are not challenged within this period, have their rights seized, so that they can be published again. Perhaps the specifics of the law are problematic, but on the surface, it looks like a great idea to me. Authors get rights to their works for 11 years, after which, if the work remains available, things proceed as they do now. But out-of-print works whose authors cannot be found, can be legally made available again. And the process has checks on possible abuses. So what's the problem?

icebraining 15y ago
If the problem is orphaned works, why not simply turn them into the public domain, an let everyone distribute them? Why keep this quango as a monopolist over all orphaned books? This is nothing but corruption, giving those select members of the quango a cash-cow at the expense of both the authors and society. The article by the AFUL explains it well: http://aful.org/communiques/french-senate-proposes-to-legalize-piracy-french-20th http://aful.org/communiques/french-senate-proposes-to-legali...
- davweb 15y ago
  The "collective management organisations" set up to manage this will be paying royalties to authors, something they wouldn't get if their books were made public domain. Similarly, an author can assert their rights and ask for a republished book to be removed from sale, something which would not be possible if works were made public domains. I'm not saying this a good idea, just that this is why they're not just removing the copyright from the works.
  - davidw 15y ago
    > The "collective management organisations" set up to manage this will be paying royalties to authors, something they wouldn't get if their books were made public domain. To me it looks like the incentives are not really in place for that. 1) If the authors are already present, registered, in touch, etc... they're already getting paid. 2) If the authors "can't be found", the big bureaucracy gets to keep the cash. Italy has a 'collective management organization, the SIAE, and the thing is pretty much pure evil.
    - bryanlarsen 15y ago
      Remember their are also publishers in the mix. Hopefully all of the payments for out-of-print books are going to the authors only.
Jun8 15y ago
This in is essence exactly the argument that Google Books is using so copy/paste all the arguments against that (the French were particularly vocal) to see the problem. If I had to choose between the government (French, US, whatever) and Google doing such a thing, I would definitely choose an entity like Google on the grounds that since they stand to make money and have a stake, they'll manage it better than a typical government can.
- loceng 15y ago
  France plans things pretty well in comparison (at least on outwardly views) compared to the US. I realize you said based on a typical government. There are negatives to a for-profit company doing things as well, where if something that could be developed would be beneficial to usefulness to users - but perhaps would hurt the profitable, then it likely wouldn't get implemented.
- bryanlarsen 15y ago
  The difference between a corporation and a government is that the corporation has a clear conflict of interest. Also, keep in mind that French governmental organizations are typically less dysfunctional than American ones.
  - JumpCrisscross 15y ago
    French governmental organizations are typically less dysfunctional than American ones Sorry, the research I've seen has shown the American government to be marginally more effective [1] and marginally less venal [2] at a much lower relative cost [3] than the French government. Quangos are usually in a class of their own when it comes to derision for public sector inefficiency [4]. [1] http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/worldmap.asp http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/worldmap.asp (2010 Government Effectiveness) [2] http://cpi.transparency.org/cpi2011/results/ http://cpi.transparency.org/cpi2011/results/ [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending#Government_spending_as_a_percentage_of_GDP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending#Government_... [4] http://www.economist.com/node/18867672 http://www.economist.com/node/18867672
foreverbanned 15y ago
> Works that are not challenged within this period, have their rights seized, so that they can be published again. It's even more restrictive : only the public libraries can make these works available (and only to there suscribers)

icebraining 15y ago

If the problem is orphaned works, why not simply turn them into the public domain, an let everyone distribute them? Why keep this quango as a monopolist over all orphaned books? This is nothing but corruption, giving those select members of the quango a cash-cow at the expense of both the authors and society. The article by the AFUL explains it well: http://aful.org/communiques/french-senate-proposes-to-legalize-piracy-french-20th http://aful.org/communiques/french-senate-proposes-to-legali...

davweb 15y ago
The "collective management organisations" set up to manage this will be paying royalties to authors, something they wouldn't get if their books were made public domain. Similarly, an author can assert their rights and ask for a republished book to be removed from sale, something which would not be possible if works were made public domains. I'm not saying this a good idea, just that this is why they're not just removing the copyright from the works.
- davidw 15y ago
  > The "collective management organisations" set up to manage this will be paying royalties to authors, something they wouldn't get if their books were made public domain. To me it looks like the incentives are not really in place for that. 1) If the authors are already present, registered, in touch, etc... they're already getting paid. 2) If the authors "can't be found", the big bureaucracy gets to keep the cash. Italy has a 'collective management organization, the SIAE, and the thing is pretty much pure evil.
  - bryanlarsen 15y ago
    Remember their are also publishers in the mix. Hopefully all of the payments for out-of-print books are going to the authors only.

Jun8 15y ago

This in is essence exactly the argument that Google Books is using so copy/paste all the arguments against that (the French were particularly vocal) to see the problem. If I had to choose between the government (French, US, whatever) and Google doing such a thing, I would definitely choose an entity like Google on the grounds that since they stand to make money and have a stake, they'll manage it better than a typical government can.

loceng 15y ago
France plans things pretty well in comparison (at least on outwardly views) compared to the US. I realize you said based on a typical government. There are negatives to a for-profit company doing things as well, where if something that could be developed would be beneficial to usefulness to users - but perhaps would hurt the profitable, then it likely wouldn't get implemented.
bryanlarsen 15y ago
The difference between a corporation and a government is that the corporation has a clear conflict of interest. Also, keep in mind that French governmental organizations are typically less dysfunctional than American ones.
- JumpCrisscross 15y ago
  French governmental organizations are typically less dysfunctional than American ones Sorry, the research I've seen has shown the American government to be marginally more effective [1] and marginally less venal [2] at a much lower relative cost [3] than the French government. Quangos are usually in a class of their own when it comes to derision for public sector inefficiency [4]. [1] http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/worldmap.asp http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/worldmap.asp (2010 Government Effectiveness) [2] http://cpi.transparency.org/cpi2011/results/ http://cpi.transparency.org/cpi2011/results/ [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending#Government_spending_as_a_percentage_of_GDP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending#Government_... [4] http://www.economist.com/node/18867672 http://www.economist.com/node/18867672

foreverbanned 15y ago

> Works that are not challenged within this period, have their rights seized, so that they can be published again. It's even more restrictive : only the public libraries can make these works available (and only to there suscribers)