On Sat, Dec 5, 2015 at 10:02 PM, Michael R. Bernstein <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 7:19 AM, Henrik Ingo <[email protected]> > wrote: >> This is interesting indeed. This is so unusual that I have to ask: >> what is the political context that has given rise to such a proposal >> that would make copyright law more sane, where usually all lobbying >> effort is towards more and longer restrictions? > > > My layman's perspective on that question is that: > > Orphan works owners by definition do not have a lobbying effort > Large holders and producers of copyrighted works will now be able to 'mine' > orphan works for adaptation with little danger, creating new works that they > can aggressively defend, and possibly will aggressively discourage others > from making competing adaptations that are 'too similar'. That knife cuts > both ways, but it is a game Hollywood is familiar with and very comfortable > playing. >
Ah right, that makes more sense. I was looking at this with the assumption that any legal content not controlled by the big producers is competition, so that they would have a motive to be against any copyrighted works ever entering the public domain. (Similarly you can often hear copyright lobbyists speaking out against perfectly legal things like Creative Commons, because it's just wrong that you're not paying them.) But you're right that they also stand to gain from co-opting orphaned works and then including them into new, copyrighted productions. henrik -- [email protected] +358-40-5697354 skype: henrik.ingo irc: hingo www.openlife.cc My LinkedIn profile: http://fi.linkedin.com/pub/henrik-ingo/3/232/8a7 _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
