Corey,

Give me a break. Nobody knows what to do about Mickey Mouse? Are you serious?

Are you serious?

Are you serious? Again. Are you serious?

You say, "This is already happening to a lot of early, post-1928 (Steamboat Willie) film stock, which is disintegrating in archives because it can't be used because no one knows whom it belongs to."

Umm… they show it as Disneyland! Again and again. They fight like tigers to make sure they own the copyright. They know they own it. (Walt killed anyone that disputed it. Just joking.)

And Disney did everything they could to corrupt the US government and copyright law to protect their rights to Mickey Mouse for into all time.

I will happily pay myself to digitize and protect Mickey Mouse under public domain to share it with the future. But Disney doesn't want that.

You must be smoking some of the crack Meredith talks about.

JF

Ms. Patterson,

You don't answer any of my key points.

And I don't have the time to change the subject and research the new bills you want to talk about instead (since you clearly didn't research the issue we began to talk about and said there was no point in worrying about it). But perhaps other Boing Boing fans would like to research the:

S. 1353, the Internet Radio Equality Act of 2007;

H.R. 1689, the Curb Illegal Downloading on Campuses Act of 2007

S. 1957/H.R. 2033, the Design Piracy Prohibition Act

Which you don't state any opinion on. Are you pro or con any of them?

Perhaps other Boing Boing fans have some opinions about these proposed laws. But I'm worried about the orphan works issue which you say (incorrectly) isn't coming up any time soon in congress.

In the meantime, should we just assume Mr. Simon as a retard, a crack smoker and a liar as you suggest? Which makes you… ?

JF

Cory,

Shame on you for dismissing this important issue in this way.

First, I urge people to read Mark Simon's original article. It is not a "bizarre rant." You might disagree with his conclusions, the urgency of the matter or his tone. But there is nothing bizarre about being worried about how orphan work legislation could be manipulated by big corporations to undermine individual's copyright protections. This is a very real issue that Simon explains well. And Simon provides ton's of links to articles, hearings, even audio discussions to back up what he is saying. Simon's links to a recent 3/13/08 hearing on the issue by the U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee. Clearly orphan work legislation is being talked about in the government right now. The idea that people should just wait until legislation has been written and and is about to be passed into law is bizarre. How can it hurt for people to inform their elected officials that they care about this issue or begin reading up on it? Look at what happened at the FCC recently when laws to consolidate big media were pushed through after rushed hearings. The opposition had no time to get organized and the FCC passed it over protests. If anyone cares about this issue now is the time to be talking about it.

I have been trying to educate myself on copyright and it is a very complex realm. It is hard for Simon to sum up everything in a four page article rather a hundred page white paper. (That's why he has links to more information.) And yes, Mark sounds real angry about the issue, but I think he has a right to be. I've heard talk about "fixing" the issue of how copyright law treats orphan works. I never had much of an opinion because it sounded kind of reasonable. "Hey, they're orphan copyrights. No one wants them. What's the harm in just letting them go?" But after reading Simon's article it's clear that even the term "orphan works" could be as loaded and dangerous as "separate but equal." Simon makes a very good case this phrase "orphan works" could become cover for legislation would require copyright registration. And that would certainly be mostly to the benefit of corporations who have enough money to pay for an army of lawyers.

One of the key aspects of the Berne convention is that no author should be required to register their creations in order to be protected by copyright. As Wikipedia states:

"The Berne Convention was developed at the instigation of Victor Hugo as the Association Littéraire et Artistique Internationale. Thus it was influenced by the French "right of the author" (droit d'auteur), which contrasts with the Anglo-Saxon concept of "copyright" which only dealt with economic concerns. Under the Convention, copyrights for creative works are automatically in force at creation, without being asserted or declared: an author need not "register" or "apply for" a copyright in countries adhering to the Convention. As soon as a work is "fixed", that is, written or recorded on some physical medium, its author is automatically entitled to all copyrights in the work and to any derivative works, unless and until the author explicitly disclaims them or until the copyright expires."

U.S. copyright law was originally inspired by the Berne Convention with it's emphasis on protecting artist rights rather than economic interests. But over the years thanks to a mess of legal changes by congress (such as stripping away the human rights of screenwriters) is has gradually become more of a tool for corporations to exploit artists than a way to protect them. In 1910 the writers of films had their rights ripped off by corporations. I don't think it's impossible to imagine the corporations wouldn't like to use the term "orphan works" as a "separate but equal" way to rip off the writers of blogs and other internet creations.

You say that Patterson's article is "really well-written" and how nice it is to have a "single, central place" to point people to about ophan works legislation. Are people suppose not worry about this issue because Patterson's blog post is well written and Simon's, in your opinion, is not? Is that the way we should make decisions about legal matters, human rights and government oversight? On who's writes the best short blog post?

Patterson has an much easer task than Simon because her message is simple: don't worry about it. Simon is trying to call people to take arms to protect their rights. Patterson says, don't bother. It's a little easier to have a calm, reassuring tone when you're telling people they don't need to worry their little heads about something.

Simon's agenda is very clear. He wants artists and authors to get educated, organized and act. He wants them to be afraid of what could happen. He goes into detail about the issue, talks about opposing arguments, and provides links to information, mailing lists and other organizations to help people join his cause. That's a lot of work from someone who is clearly passionate about the issue. Moreover, Simon isn't sugarcoating this. The enemy is bad, has tons of resources, and isn't about to give up. Hard to sum that up calmly in a short post.

Patterson's agenda is less clear. Does she have a history of fighting for artist rights? Does she have a history of commentary on copyright legislation? What's her dog in this race? Why write this piece other than to prevent people from thinking or saving poor congressmen from having to read letters fretting about nothing. (My dog in this race is that I'm a screenwriter and I've already been ripped off on the issue of copyright by the corporations with the assistance of the US congress. More than once.)

It's a lot easier to say "What, me worry?" as Patterson does than making a case to storm the Bastile which Simon does.

But he convinced me.

This is typically outrageous misinformation by the major media corporations lobbying groups. The Berne Convention is a declaration of human rights. It is to protect people from, among other things, slavery. Thank God it can’t be changed easily!

Copyright, at least in the rest of the world, is a human right. It’s about artists being rewarded for their contribution to society. The Berne Convention said that artists cannot have their ideas and creations stolen from them by publishers. Of course, in the USA, copyright has been turned on it’s head and is about protecting corporations who steal artists rights.

Is the US in violation of the Berne Convention? Damn straight it is. Because US law allows corporations to steal copyright from creators (particularly in audio/visual media). But don’t expect the lawyers for the big corporations to talk about that. (For more information go to: www.screenrights.net.)

Fair use is also a human right. There is nothing in the Berne Convention against it. This is like a magician waving one hand to distract you from what the other is doing. I wouldn’t be surprised if half the purpose of this whispering campaign is to try to convince people that the Berne Convention is somehow a bad thing. There is a reason the US didn’t sign it until the late 1980’s (long after just about every other democracy and modern government had). They didn’t, and still don’t, want artists to have any rights. And they are willing to lie, cheat and steal to make sure that doesn’t happen.