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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqBZd0cP5Yc

This is a new bill in Congress that they want to pass that basically says this: Unless you pay to protect your works, it's everyone. It's automatic public domain. They claim that it has no value to even you since because you don't wanna release to the public so the government is gonna force you to give it out to the pubic for free.

And this is anything you done. Your ****ty emo song on how nobody loves you, or ****ty artwork, your horrible YouTube movies, it is just not even yours anymore.

Hell, anything you did about your works and and somebody took it, good luck esp. if a greedy ass ******ry company take it and you try to take it back.

Isn't that how copyrights work?

Originally Posted by Demo

Isn't that how copyrights work?

Right now, if you make a painting or somesuch, from the very second you sign it with your name, it's copyrighted.

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

Yes but there's a bit of a difference between "getting something copyrighted" and "you have no exercisable rights against someone unless something came out of your wallet when you registered it". Usually that's just to help prove that it really is protected, so it's just to iron-seal it.

Then again I'm no expert in IP law because my law-school was horribly misleading about modules which only come up every two years so I'm raging like a mofugger right now.

Edit: I notice the fella in the video phone-interview only mentions a list of the kind of artwork I mentioned.

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.

I will be beyond furious if a producer takes any of the original concepts that I've worked on in my Ugly Betty fan-fiction.

Watch the video, it seems to know more about it than I or Snowstorm do at least. He says you have a form of "passive" copyright protection, in that I presume you might be able to enforce it in courts if you can prove that your creative work has in fact been stolen. Registering it under the Copyright Act only gives you definitive statutory rights to damages, but this Orphan Works Act seems to mean that unless you register it, you have zero protection.

And to Ms. Kapowski (I always thought Spano was hotter, **** you), there are arguments that fan-fiction and fan-art are illegal anyway, so that's irrelevant since they're barely affected by this.

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.

No. Though going through a process will make it easier for you to assert your rights over your work. But I believe the moment something is created such as a song, poem, or short story is immediately protected. Well that is if I understand it correctly.

Would this work in conjunction with the copyrights or does it cover an entirely different area?

What do you mean? Right now you have a "passive" copyright protection over any of your intellectual property or creative works whether or not you register it. This act would make it so that unless you register it, there's no protection on it whatsoever.

Well, as I see it these "passive rights" mean squat if the person who stole your work copyrights it. I think this new bill was created because this has been happening too frequently. I agree with this new bill so long as it doesn't over charge the artist. A small payment should be enough.

That's precisely the point though - if you have "passive copyright" on something, and someone else tries to copyright it as their work, right now you are legally capable (not necessarily practically capable subject to legal costs) of challenging their copyright. I don't think this bill would make it so that other people can copyright your work, though, it would just make it so that they don't have to look for your permission or pay you anything to use it. Which is obviously unfair to the creator, because as they argue in that video, clearly if people want to use your work, it has value, and as such you have a right to at least be consulted upon its use. Time and effort has gone into your creation of this work, and it's unjust that just because you may not have paid to copyright it, regardless of cost, you should have no legally enforceable rights relating to it.

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.

My interpretation is that it's objective is to protect the artist by forcing him/her to assure their art. It's very methodical, but effective. Not practical though.

There's nothing I can do about him trying to copyright it, or even doing so successfully, but I can challenge that copyright by proving that he's stolen my work.

Obviously it helps protect an artist better if he pays to copyright his work, but just because he won't pay doesn't mean that he shouldn't have any rights to his work because he's actually invested in his work, he may have invested a lot in his work. Just like how a couple who has been together for so long still deserves consideration even though they were unwilling to actually get married, because they've both invested in that relationship (a subject I do know something about).

I understand what you mean. But those passive rights tend to be inconsistent in court against a copyright. Believe me, I've seen it happen. I think people should protect their work as soon as the finish it. I don't, however, agree with a high payment for this. It should be free for creative purposes and reasons, let the taxes pay for it. Hahahah that last one made me laugh.

Wouldn't this go against stuff like the Berne Convention and similar?

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.

Originally Posted by Demo

I understand what you mean. But those passive rights tend to be inconsistent in court against a copyright. Believe me, I've seen it happen. I think people should protect their work as soon as the finish it. I don't, however, agree with a high payment for this. It should be free for creative purposes and reasons, let the taxes pay for it. Hahahah that last one made me laugh.

Just because they're inconsistent and hard to prove doesn't mean we should do away with them. Again, what you're suggesting is that our artists should essentially be penalized for not wanting to go through the beauracratic process of protecting their work when they don't actually know if it has any value to begin with.

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