I will also have to completely disagree with the take on how widely used this new power will be. Nobody is taking away any rights, the law simply allows fo a user to apply for a licence after an exhaustive search of the author of a work has been made. This is very different from the scaremongering peddled at the moment about losing rights.

As I mentioned, there are countries which have similar schemes, if you are afraid about the scheme, take a quick look at the Canadian copyright office, which has only issued 22 licences during the existence of orphan works legislation.

This is designed to be used in very few cases, all of the fears of Google owning everyone’s copyright is quite simply a fiction in Andrew Orlowski’s mind.

Firstly that in the new UK legislation the emphasis is not on deriving a “greater good” by keeping the new rights confined to non-profit museums, galleries and academic institutions; a kind of “fair use”, as exists in other countries. The UK legislation has been overly influenced by the big publishing and media corporations to allow them to PROFIT from this new law, ironically these same businesses are the ones currently accused of not paying their full taxes. Way to go UK parliament.
Secondly the writer tries to say there will still be full copyright protection under the new law, legally this may be dubious at best depending on how a court perceives the moral rights part of copyright protection. Permission to license/use is at the heart of copyright and IP law, by taking that right away from the copyright holder it makes the concept of copyright meaningless.
Most creators that I know would have had little issue with a genuine attempt to unlock collections of orphan works held by museums ands academic institutions, but it is a very different matter if Google want to license an orphan work, perhaps an image of mine of an aircraft, to advertise, say, a defence contractor company report.
The very least that Hargreaves should have done is to demand that removing/altering Metadata without the copyright holder’s permission, is a criminal offence.

” the “Orphan Works” bill represents a landmark bid by Internet companies and other organizations pining for legal clarity over their use of copyrighted material.” John Letzing (Wall Street Journal 2008),

Google’s General Counsel, David Drummond on OW IP, “greater clarity on the status of orphaned works could provide comfort to companies such as Google, “that they can publish a work without fear of liability.”

‘What we need is a wholesale way to clarify the rights of companies like Google, Yahoo or Microsoft, so they could start to make use of [orphaned works] without an extraordinary burden” Lawrence Lessig 2008 (WSJ)

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/web-firms-bid-for-copyright-clarity-left-hanging

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/web-firms-quietly-win-copyright-victory-in-congress

Feel free to surf to my web site Female mind mastery review

1. Orphan Works is not an issue that has been systematically ignored in Colombia – maybe it has been ignored by lawmakers and legal literature but not by real and daily life copyright practices- . Currently and since many years ago, academics, universities, cultural institutions and governmental agencies are working and discussing issues related with Orphan Works.
2. Article 39, which is mentioned in the post, does not represent nothing-new neither in Colombia or in the worldwide practice of copyright management of Musical Works. Article 39 is just putting in the law what is happening in the practice. However, this could not be the practice anymore because the regulatory framework of copyright management in Colombia broke up any chance for schemes of blanket licenses, therefore article 39 is not feasible at all within Colombian context.
3. The author of this post said that: “One may or may not agree with that provision, but it would have only applied to members of the same private corporate collecting society”, there is a misunderstanding of how it is the copyright management of musical works in Colombia. In Colombia there is not anymore a monopoly or a unique CMOs for specific kind of works, but the law try to establish an unique royalty collection agency regarding to public performance rights –which should be the focus of concern-, in this vein the proposed article 39 doesn’t make sense. Currently there is a similar discussion about an spanish copyright bill and the management of copyright related with literary works, the regulatory context there is very different, and the arguments of the author of this post could be applied in Spain but not in Colombia. What is really worry is that neither lawmakers and critics understand the normative framework of copyright management, both are writing -laws and criticism- in a rush.
4. I agree that “stating transparency as a principle” is important, but it is far to be enough for real transparent practices of copyright management. Solutions to Orphan Works problems in Colombia must take in account that realities of lack of transparency and honesty in copyright management.

Thanks for sharing!

As such, these are kept fully no cost from credential checksums.

Concerns such as defaults, arrears, bankruptcy, CCJs and even IVAs are not viewed as
here. Further, there are also no collaterals
related with these loans. There is minimal paper work necessary on the aspect of borrower.
There are also no hidden or extra documentation or faxing needed here.
Applying for these loans is also incredibly convenient.
People today merely call for filling an via the internet type and
when this gets authorized money is received inside 24
hours time frame. These loans are frequently supplied below handy terms and conditions.
The common basic applicant criteria here is that they ought to be
a UK resident and of 18 years of age.

http://www.hiperderecho.org/2012/12/responsabilidad-isp-peru/

Thanks for your interest!

Surely governments can’t be stupid enough not to ask them that question? They must have a web developer on hand to ask.

With ACTA human rights are at stake, and possibly human lives (medicine, climate change, seeds). It is essential that the Court’s assessment is as inclusive as possible. Hence the FFII amicus curiae brief.

The FFII has asked the Court to reconsider the Court’s rules on amicus curiae briefs in opinion procedures and accept amicus curiae briefs in the ACTA referral:

http://acta.ffii.org/?p=1683

So this organisation put some time and energy into drafting this letter, but did not check whether the Court’s rules of procedure allow for the filing of such letters. Or did they expect the Court to breach its own rules in order to take into account their letter?

Of course, afterwards they make this simplistic and populist statemant trying to put the blame on the Court. Well done!

As a citizen, I have much more confidence in the Court, than in these awkward organisations.

On the legal side, proposals have circulated for years to expand and clarify the ‘private copy’ rules on the books in countries like Germany to cover file sharing. These are sometimes called ‘sharing licenses.’ They come with lots of challenges of implementation, but then so does building a digital culture organized around copyright protection. I doubt sharing licenses are politically viable in the US. There are too many powerful vested interests in the current distribution chain. But they might be viable in countries with less powerful domestic media sectors and a stronger sense of the tradeoffs in enforcement.

The (business) alternative is to make legal access so cheap and abundant that piracy becomes largely irrelevant. This is already happening, to an extent, in the US. Then you can limit enforcement to the more traditional commercial intermediaries and pre-releasers and ignore the rest. It’s not a painless path but better than the alternatives.