Copyright and Orphan Works Take Four: Lawrence Lessig is at it again!
Via a heads-up by sonnyliew:
Lawrence Lessig has an opinion piece in yesterday's New York Times. An interesting read, but unless I'm confused and he's referring to a more recent report and/or bill than the 2006 report and bill (not likely, since I know...someone...who is currently working on the next bill, ergo it's not out there yet), he's off-base again ( Read more... )
Lawrence Lessig has an opinion piece in yesterday's New York Times. An interesting read, but unless I'm confused and he's referring to a more recent report and/or bill than the 2006 report and bill (not likely, since I know...someone...who is currently working on the next bill, ergo it's not out there yet), he's off-base again ( Read more... )
Comments 1
(The comment has been removed)
The best practices thing, if I'm thinking of the right thing, was discussed in the 2006 Report - it's not suggested (in the Report) that the best practices will be the only guideline for determining whether the searcher was diligent.
Personally I think if this is the path the bill will follow (i.e. the "diligent search" thing) then perhaps one good way of doing it would be to have threshold search requirements, which must be met or the user automatically loses the case (i.e. did the user check the Copyright Office, any standard databases in that industry, and do a Google search to try to find info on the work, or things like that). Then, if the user can show he did that, it wouldn't mean he'd win. It would mean he'd then get to move to the next step in the inquiry, as to what additional steps were taken and whether that qualified as a diligent search. Also, a copyright owner could be allowed to rebut the user's argument by showing what searches could have been used to find the work (and then a judge ( ... )
Reply
Leave a comment