The 'Orphan works' bill is a gift to corporate publishers - not self-publishing authors.
This is why I suspect Lessig opposes it. It effectively weakens copyright for self-publishers - which is good from a copyright abolitionist perspective, because it is self-publishers who most need to come to terms with the fact that copyright is dead. Corporate publishers are simply adding another dozen rows of bricks to the walls around their gardens - unwittingly removing themselves from public culture. But, they're beyond salvation anyway. So, I'd support the 'Orphan Works' bill. * * * Copyright is a privilege designed for large, wealthy, highly commercial, publishing coporations. It is wholly unsuited to small, poor, non-commercially promoted, modestly commercial, self-publishing individuals. The 'Orphan works' bill simply reinforces copyright as the preserve of publishing corporations. The bill permits the exchange of a financial burden (registering and protecting ones works against appropriation as orphans, and token due diligence in determining whether the works one would like to appropriate are registered/protected by other publishers) for the ability to appropriate anything from public culture (whether copyrighted or not) on the pretext it is an orphan work. Basically, if a work isn't registered as protected by a publishing corporation it's an orphan work. This means there's no copyright for the little self-publisher - unless they submit their work to a coporate publisher for its protection. But, for cultural libertarians this is fine. It simply means there is far less hope for Lessig's aspiration that copyright can become an authorial privilege. The author's choice is now even starker: sell your privilege to publishers or relinquish your privilege and sell/give your work to the public without constraint. There is now much less viability in the idea that the self-publishing author can retain any privilege over their published works. In other words, copyright is now even less potent for the self-publisher. The state will be happy to continue favouring its corporate sponsors as the better guardians of 'IP' and recommending them to authors as the best guys to go to for protection, and thus save itself the expense of protecting foolish little self-publishers. However, what corporate publishers don't realise is that this now creates ever greater incentives to self-publishers to publish their works without constraint and fosters ever greater favour by the public for such unconstrained works. The public will steadily avoid culture with constraint (especially with its ever greater costs and risks). Many people mistakenly think that copyright is precious, that its 'protection' should be prized by all, but copyright is actually a cultural contaminant. A work constrained and thus contaminated by copyright is a work that is damaged, dirty and diseased. Culture without copyright is clean, free of unethical constraint, and naturally wholesome. If culture were food, we're effectively looking at the polarisation of food into genetically modified crops and livestock vs organic crops and free range livestock. The 'Orphan works' bill has analogously made the use of GM even less viable for smallholdings. The future is now brighter for GM free crops and livestock. _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
