Just came across this in the news: apparently there are two moves at present to legalize digitization and dissemination of works that are still under copyright, but whose owners have disappeared. One move is legislative, backed by the folks behind The Internet Archive among others. The other is via a legal settlement which (it has been argued) would effectively privilege Google.

Some information:

http://www.opencontentalliance.org/2009/02/23/its-all-about-the-orphans/

http://www.googlebooksettlement.com/

This is of interest to RPG hobbyists due to some games potentially being "orphaned" in the manner defined. Most notable is The Fantasy Trip--although I hasten to add, I've seen a report that the copyright holder, Howard Thompson, has quietly been in touch with some individuals in the gaming community, and that his son maintains a blog.

This is a step in the right direction. Cutting Copyright down to about 15 years would be a much better step in the right direction.
Getting rid of copyright as it exists today altogether would probably be the ultimately best solution, though.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;322780Getting rid of copyright as it exists today altogether would probably be the ultimately best solution, though.

How would you like other people to respect your authorship of FTA?

I don't believe that you are happy about PDF filesharers.

He is Dirk. He said a a million times. He´s flattered by filesharing.

What´s up with everybody´s memory?

The act of Memorising things is a violation of copyright and has therefore been withdrawn.

Quote from: RPGPundit;322780This is a step in the right direction. Cutting Copyright down to about 15 years would be a much better step in the right direction.

27 + 27 renewed worked fine for a number of years.

Quote from: RPGPundit;322780Getting rid of copyright as it exists today altogether would probably be the ultimately best solution, though.

That would just hand power back to the big boys. It is a balancing game. Too much cause problems too little other problems somewhere in the middle the protection of the law helps progress and promotion of the arts and science.

But I will say the internet changes things somewhat. The whole problem with no copyright was the capital investment in printing press. So all the money was being made by the folks who owned printing presses and the author not getting a dim.  With the Internet driving the price of production down by several order of magnitude is that a concern anymore.

The only equivalent would be those sites that have a lot of unique visitors. It all very well that your cost is near zero but if you don't have a way of attracting visitors to your site then you still don't make money. The sites that have a lot of visitors can copy the most popular works and sell them without the author seeing a dime.

Also an interesting note is that all this copyright for life crap was pushed by one man, Victor Hugo. Who couldn't stand losing control of his works. From there it snowballed into what we have today.

Above all remember copyright originated as a form of censorship.

The original US constitution's 20 years is sufficient, IMO.

Quote from: Settembrini;322791He is Dirk. He said a a million times. He´s flattered by filesharing.

What´s up with everybody´s memory?

You have us all at a disadvantage; ass licking is apparently a potent memory aid.

If the copyright owner disappeared...then what is it preventing you from violating copyright? Copyright is not a criminal issue, it's a civil one.  Someone has to sue you for it to be an issue, and if the person is gone, you won't be sued.

there has been similiar musing in the console/computer emulator and abandoned software arenas as well.

Quote from: Mistwell;322869If the copyright owner disappeared...then what is it preventing you from violating copyright? Copyright is not a criminal issue, it's a civil one.  Someone has to sue you for it to be an issue, and if the person is gone, you won't be sued.

In the US, since 2001, it actually is also criminal. DMCA makes certain forms of infringement criminal.

Quote from: aramis;322822The original US constitution's 20 years is sufficient, IMO.

Not in my opinion - people live longer now than they did in in the 1780s.

- Ed C.

Quote from: Koltar;323105Not in my opinion - people live longer now than they did in in the 1780s.

Don't forget to adjust for infant mortality.

30 years wouldn't be awful. 40 years, sure. I just think it should terminate at death. The infinite extension we've effectively got now is stifling.

Quote from: Thanlis;323187Don't forget to adjust for infant mortality.

30 years wouldn't be awful. 40 years, sure. I just think it should terminate at death. The infinite extension we've effectively got now is stifling.

Death is no good, since then corporations (who are legally persons) only die when their corporate entity is dissolved.

Death-only would mean anything owned by WEDCo (DBA Disney Studios) would never expire. Or Sony Entertainment Corporation.

Quote from: AosYou have us all at a disadvantage; ass licking is apparently a potent memory aid.

Quit being a douche. Sett was right and Dirk obviously didn't know what the fuck he was talking about.