The NY Times column is not a good source of definitive information. I've studied both the House Bill (H.R. 5889) and the Senate Bill (S. 2913). I strongly disagree with your assessment of the proposed legislation. If anyone is interested in the real issues, rather than responding to the pseudo analysis in the NY TImes, read the actual language. If you want more information, considering contacting the bills' sponsors; I recommend you contact the offices of Rep John Conyers, and Sen Orin Hatch. Bill -----Original Message----- >From: PhotoRoy6@xxxxxxx >Sent: May 20, 2008 11:17 AM >To: List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students <photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >Subject: Re: Copyright Changes Before Congress > > >http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/20/opinion/20lessig.html?th&emc=th > > >CONGRESS is considering a major reform of copyright law intended to solve >the problem of “orphan works” — those works whose owner cannot be found. This “ >reform” would be an amazingly onerous and inefficient change, which would >unfairly and unnecessarily burden copyright holders with little return to the >public. >The problem of orphan works is real. It was caused by a fundamental shift in >the architecture of copyright law. Before 1978, copyright was an opt-in >system, granting protection only to those who registered and renewed their >copyright, and only if they marked their creative work with the famous ©. >............. >The solution before Congress, however, is both unfair and unwise. The bill >would excuse copyright infringers from significant damages if they can prove >that they made a “diligent effort” to find the copyright owner. A “diligent >effort” is defined as one that is “reasonable and appropriate,” as determined >by a set of “best practices” maintained by the government. > > > > > >**************Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on family >favorites at AOL Food. >(http://food.aol.com/dinner-tonight?NCID=aolfod00030000000001)
