Ok, so here's the AWN article everybody's talking about: [link]

Here's a reply debunking it found by If anyone knows where it originated, please help out:

"First of all, Mark's definition of orphan works is wrong. An orphan work is a creative work where the original copyright owner cannot be located or identified. What he is describing as "orphan works" is, in actuality, the public domain. (Though, improper registration only applies to works from before when the Berne Convention was ratified.) (See [link]_works)

Second of all, there is no current legislation before congress regarding orphan works. The Public Domain Enhancement Act was the last bit of legislation regarding copyright and orphan works reform, and died after being referred to committee in 2006. You can confirm this yourself by searching for "orphan works" at the Library of Congress (thomas.loc.gov/bss/110····rch.html).

Third of all, the Public Domain Enhancement Act doesn't legalise theft any more than copyright expiration legalises theft. Copyright is supposed to be a short, fixed term exclusive right that encourages the production of new creative works. Copyright was not intended to allow Disney to continue to make money on cartoons created 3 generations ago, or for John Lennon's wife to get rich off her dead husband's estate, but that's how it is today thanks to the large media conglomerates. (For someone that's spending so much time railing against corporations, Mark seems to spend a lot of time not talking about how the major film and music studios have pressured Congress to extend copyright terms 11 times since the original 1790 copyright act.)

Fourth of all, the Public Domain Enhancement Act requires a token payment of $1 every 10 years, ONCE THE COPYRIGHT HAS BEEN IN EFFECT ALREADY FOR FIFTY YEARS. That means, the first 50 years of copyright are still free, even under the proposed Act.

Fifth of all, Mark is wrong about current registration requirements. In order to file ANY copyright infringement suit, not just one for statutory damages, you have to register the work with the copyright office. Statutory damages can only be claimed if the registration is made within 3 months after publication of the work or prior to an infringement of the work. All this information is easily available from the Copyright Office's Web site (www.copyright.gov/circ····.html#cr) so there's no reason for him to get it wrong.

Sixth of all, I'm very interested to learn how the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation makes Bill Gates money, since Mark claims that Bill Gates doesn't "do anything unless it can make a huge amount of money". I'm even more interested as to how Mark thinks that Bill Gates stepping down as chairman of Microsoft to move into philanthropy will make him more money than continuing to run the largest software company on earth.

Finally, the most important thing. The point of orphan works laws, which is COMPLETELY missed by this three page comedy of errors, is NOT to make it possible for people or corporations to steal your work. In fact, most of the orphan works legislation has been pioneered by people such as Lawrence Lessig and Eric Eldred -- people that are TIRED of big corporations continuing to steal from the public domain by pushing forward copyright term limits. The point of orphaned works laws is to make it possible for people to use works whose owners cannot be found, thereby preventing these works from fading into oblivion and creating a new surge of creativity built on these freely available works.

Under the current system, even if someone is willing to pay for license to use a work, if they can't find the original copyright holder, they can't risk using the work in case the original copyright holder or a heir surfaces later and sues them.

With the proposed US orphan works law, after 50 years, if the copyright holder does not pay the $1 tax to continue their copyright ownership, the work enters the public domain. How fifty years of exclusive rights is not enough for Mark, I don't know. It's still FAR more than the original 28-year term set back in 1790, and still FAR more than is needed to make money on a work. Any potential legislation that works to reduce copyright terms is a VERY GOOD THING for all creatives today."


Ok, so first off, if anyone has something debunking the debunker, please hook me up and I'll link to that too! Second, I'd like to add that I don't share his thoughts about current copyright legislation. I think if a family or corporation wants to renew a copyright until the end of time, that's fine. I don't think its EVER ok to steal the work of others, personally.

In my opinion, it's best to start alerting the authorities AFTER the necessary research has been done. If we start squawking our heads off before we even know what we're talking about, it'll be like the Boy Who Cried Wolf, and we won't be heard when we REALLY need to be.

***
Commissions are indeed still available for now (especially if they're as much fun as the ones I have now). They're $25 for a full color one-character image, $10 each additional character. Digital only. Note me if you're interested.
***
Check out the new TV's Kyle album "Let's All Do the Guk Guk Guk!" at CDBaby [link]
and at iTunes [link]