5.1 The Terms of Use are governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of New York and the intellectual property laws of the United States, and you agree to submit to the personal jurisdiction of the courts of the state of New York for any for any cause or action arising out of or relating to the Registry or these Terms of Use.
While interesting, those articles are not exactly from a neutral third party, nu? It's kind of like reading rebuttals of a Torrentfreak article from the MPAA...
Personally, I'd be interested in seeing if there's a clearer definition for exactly what constitutes a "diligent search" - are we talking "couldn't find it in Google Image search" or something just a leetle more rigorous?
We don't actually know yet. The statutes are being written as we speak. If they'd come out and said "30 seconds on Google is enough" then I'd be agreeing with (some) of what he's saying. But he's leaping to negative judgement with a scare story.
Mm. While I don't entirely agree with him on some points (at this point in time - I reserve the right to change my views after further consideration), that is definitely a good read for a third point of view, and a rather more balanced one at that. And on the whole, I do tend to take the Register's opinion pieces on IP with a largish grain of salt - I just found the official response to be disappointingly vague in certain key areas (a criticism that could well apply to the original piece too, I suppose).
For another viewpoint, there's currently a burgeoning discussion of the Reg article on Hacker News (which I'd link to, but for some reason I'm in LJ's bad books at the moment). At the moment, consensus seems to be more towards the "Orlowski is scaremongering / this is a good thing" camp.
I guess I'll just wait for the final legislation, and see what actually says.
I hadn't thought about it until I saw this fuss, but I was expecting the legislation to be entirely limited to the British Library making archival copies of British cultural digital works when the identity of the copyright holder isn't known, with a register in case people wish to opt-out. I haven't heard anybody suggest anything else, though as you say we haven't seen the legislation yet.
Given the British Library is currently limited to formal commercial and explicitly public domain works, and so much important and exciting stuff is happening in the murky grey of the permissionless internet, we kinda need this exemption so that the National Archive stays relevant to what is going on in UK culture.
Also: It will totally miff the 10 billion Banksy-aping counter-culture anti-artists that there's a national institution dedicated to taking them seriously, and preserving their nihilistic society-ending art for future generations.
Unless they have drastically changed their tune after I dropped them from my regular reading list (sometime around 2009; I occasionally stray there for tabloid-level ragging of computer lulz), then yes.
Edit: Popped over and checked -- it seems that they are now rather mixed about whether or not it is happening, but what catches my eye are things like this:
It's always been intended to allow for use of stuff for commercial purposes-a specific example would be a local history project for, say, my granny's village-she has a chunk of photos taken before and during the war, but who took them is completely unknown.
while prints are in circulation in the village and with family, it's currently illegal for a historian to put them in a book under English law, despite their historical significance, because there's no way of finding out who took them. Stuff like the War Museum having 2.2 million photos it can't even display let alone make other use of is a different kind of use.
It's a fudge of a copyright reform bill, it's sorta making things sorta better, but it's going to annoy some regardless.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
theweaselking
(no subject)
Date: 2013-04-29 06:21 pm (UTC)https://plusregistry.org/cgi-bin/WebObjects/PlusDB.woa/1/wo/VavHdqUWKntkZ4OxY5CPcM/1.15.35
5.1 The Terms of Use are governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of New York and the intellectual property laws of the United States, and you agree to submit to the personal jurisdiction of the courts of the state of New York for any for any cause or action arising out of or relating to the Registry or these Terms of Use.
(no subject)
Date: 2013-04-29 06:24 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2013-04-29 06:39 pm (UTC)Have some stuff written to rebut inaccuracies in a previous Reg article on the subject:
http://discuss.bis.gov.uk/enterprise-bill/2012/07/30/30-july-uk-copyright-accessing-orphan-works/
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20121205183318/http://blogs.bis.gov.uk/blog/2012/08/02/uk-copyright-and-orphan-works-the-facts/
(no subject)
Date: 2013-04-29 08:37 pm (UTC)Personally, I'd be interested in seeing if there's a clearer definition for exactly what constitutes a "diligent search" - are we talking "couldn't find it in Google Image search" or something just a leetle more rigorous?
(no subject)
Date: 2013-04-29 08:45 pm (UTC)Have another viewpoint: http://zine.openrightsgroup.org/features/2012/the-orphan-%28or-hostage%29-works-problem
(no subject)
Date: 2013-04-29 09:02 pm (UTC)And on the whole, I do tend to take the Register's opinion pieces on IP with a largish grain of salt - I just found the official response to be disappointingly vague in certain key areas (a criticism that could well apply to the original piece too, I suppose).
For another viewpoint, there's currently a burgeoning discussion of the Reg article on Hacker News (which I'd link to, but for some reason I'm in LJ's bad books at the moment). At the moment, consensus seems to be more towards the "Orlowski is scaremongering / this is a good thing" camp.
I guess I'll just wait for the final legislation, and see what actually says.
(no subject)
Date: 2013-04-29 10:09 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2013-04-30 08:50 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2013-04-30 09:49 am (UTC)I hadn't thought about it until I saw this fuss, but I was expecting the legislation to be entirely limited to the British Library making archival copies of British cultural digital works when the identity of the copyright holder isn't known, with a register in case people wish to opt-out. I haven't heard anybody suggest anything else, though as you say we haven't seen the legislation yet.
Given the British Library is currently limited to formal commercial and explicitly public domain works, and so much important and exciting stuff is happening in the murky grey of the permissionless internet, we kinda need this exemption so that the National Archive stays relevant to what is going on in UK culture.
Also: It will totally miff the 10 billion Banksy-aping counter-culture anti-artists that there's a national institution dedicated to taking them seriously, and preserving their nihilistic society-ending art for future generations.
(no subject)
Date: 2013-04-30 12:19 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2013-04-30 02:26 pm (UTC)Edit: Popped over and checked -- it seems that they are now rather mixed about whether or not it is happening, but what catches my eye are things like this:
Global warming still stalled since 1998, WMO Doha figures show
Climate shocker: Carry on as we are until 2050, planet will be FINE
Greenland ice SIMPLY WOULD NOT MELT in baking +8°C era 120k years ago
What's common with these articles? They're written by Lewis Page.
(no subject)
Date: 2013-04-30 02:40 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2013-04-30 02:45 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2013-04-30 05:44 pm (UTC)while prints are in circulation in the village and with family, it's currently illegal for a historian to put them in a book under English law, despite their historical significance, because there's no way of finding out who took them. Stuff like the War Museum having 2.2 million photos it can't even display let alone make other use of is a different kind of use.
It's a fudge of a copyright reform bill, it's sorta making things sorta better, but it's going to annoy some regardless.