BUY YOUR OWN WORKS, THANKS TO OUR GOVERNMENT!!!

Originally Posted by Discussion

The government stomping on the have-nots...what is so surprising?

The legislation was drafted by Communists mate. Watch the video.

Oh damn!

I believe that's "oh snap" you're looking for there.

Lol stupid bill.

Passive copyright is indeed a very helpful thing; it helps to keep others from saying something is theirs, when it is, in fact yours... so long as you have the ability to prove that you came up with it originally. What this bill seems to be trying to do is get rid of that passive copyright... which will therefore hurt those who wish to have original ideas.
EXAMPLE: You come up with character X. So long as there's passive copyright, big company ASS cannot use X in anything, as you are the original artist, and are able to provide documentation. Now this bill comes along. Unless you pay to copyright your work, ASS can now freely make profit off of X, and you can't do a thing about it. Angry, you quit drawing all together, and become an alcoholic. Years later, you see your character getting bastardized and shoved into poorly made games that make X a total joke. In your druken stupor, you go on a mass murdering spree, angered by the improper use of your character.

In short: This bill will lead to mass-murder sprees.

Originally Posted by Iceholder

Passive copyright is indeed a very helpful thing; it helps to keep others from saying something is theirs, when it is, in fact yours... so long as you have the ability to prove that you came up with it originally. What this bill seems to be trying to do is get rid of that passive copyright... which will therefore hurt those who wish to have original ideas.
EXAMPLE: You come up with character X. So long as there's passive copyright, big company ASS cannot use X in anything, as you are the original artist, and are able to provide documentation. Now this bill comes along. Unless you pay to copyright your work, ASS can now freely make profit off of X, and you can't do a thing about it. Angry, you quit drawing all together, and become an alcoholic. Years later, you see your character getting bastardized and shoved into poorly made games that make X a total joke. In your druken stupor, you go on a mass murdering spree, angered by the improper use of your character.

In short: This bill will lead to mass-murder sprees.

If only they'd accept such an argument.

Originally Posted by Demo

Well, that only applies to a handful of things. You still have to get songs copyrighted.

No, you don't have to get anything copyrighted. Any creative work is automatically protected by copyright.

Registering it just makes it easier to show that you came up with it first.

Heck, not even patents or trademarks need to be registered. Though, again, doing so can help immensely.

Originally Posted by Demo

Don't you have to pay to get something copyrighted? And by doing so, don't get all the rights on that piece? Pardon my ignorance but I would love to know about this.

Nope. You can pay, but don't have to.

Originally Posted by Demo

Well, if someone were to copyright your work right now. I doubt he would tell you, you would probably find out after he did this and now there's nothing you can do about it.

There's plenty you can do. All it takes is for you to show that you came up with it first.

This can be tricky, but is by no means impossible.

Originally Posted by Tonchiki

This bill's been getting nowhere for a long while. I really don't think we have much to worry about.

However, to my understanding, this bill would make it so that your works become public domain if you're "unable to be reasonably contacted", or something to that extent.
This is legally very vague, and it will be hard to prove what justifies "reasonably contacted".

Again, I don't think this will go too far.

Ah, so wait, this is simply about orphaned works?

That makes much more sense, then.


So, if no creator is known, or can be found, for a piece of work, then it will no longer be considered under copyright.


I'm not sure how I feel about that, but it makes far more sense than what it first seemed like.

Originally Posted by John

Ah, so wait, this is simply about orphaned works?
That makes much more sense, then.

So, if no creator is known, or can be found, for a piece of work, then it will no longer be considered under copyright.
I'm not sure how I feel about that, but it makes far more sense than what it first seemed like.

It has do with orphan works, yes, but the main thing about this is what's considered an "orphan work". At the moment you don't have to pay to register something-- the copyright automatically belongs to you, provided you made it and it doesn't infringe another's copyright.

But in regards to this bill, it will be a lot more up in the air what is an "orphaned work". If you don't pay to register something, for instance, it will be a lot more up in the air as to how hard someone has to try to find out if you own a work. Basically, you have to fight a lot harder to protect your own stuff, in a way that won't even result in any more protection than you already have now. It's only really a good bill for art thieves or people that can't wait until a copyright on a certain item runs out so they can display it/use it.

Wow, this is incredibly ridiculous. How could they even pass this?

Edit: Oh, they become orphaned works unless you register them. That is still outrageous.

Originally Posted by Tonchiki

It has do with orphan works, yes, but the main thing about this is what's considered an "orphan work". At the moment you don't have to pay to register something-- the copyright automatically belongs to you, provided you made it and it doesn't infringe another's copyright.

But in regards to this bill, it will be a lot more up in the air what is an "orphaned work". If you don't pay to register something, for instance, it will be a lot more up in the air as to how hard someone has to try to find out if you own a work. Basically, you have to fight a lot harder to protect your own stuff, in a way that won't even result in any more protection than you already have now. It's only really a good bill for art thieves or people that can't wait until a copyright on a certain item runs out so they can display it/use it.

Ah, so, not so good, then.


Interesting, who's lobbying in favour of this, anyone know?

^ I hear lots of big companies, libraries, archives, and the like are in favor of it. Big surprise.

But really, I think people are actually making it worse just by bringing it up so often.

They tried it in 2005 or 2006 and failed, then it was brought up again in March 2008, and I haven't heard a thing about its progress in Congress since April 2008.