The one post in which I'm not rooting for the super-villain...

Google is behind a move to radically change copyright law

But since Google is behind this (initially hiding behind a couple of museum organizations)

[citation needed]

I've found multiple references to the fact that Google sees the value in or even supports the legislation, what I haven't found are any references outside this post that say Google sponsored or even lobbied for the legislation.

In Response to aprotim (#43092):

I'd hate to say this but I get this distinct feeling that you are being taken for a ride just like the people you are talked about with those oddball contests. Have you read that law?

In Response to technoextreme (#43094):

I'm sorry, what? Did you mean to respond to my comment?

The capwiz article has a few problems with it. One example is claiming that "reasonable compensation" is an ambiguous term, though "reasonable compensation" is explicitly defined on page 4. I think the community would be better served if Mr. Guigar put a link to the actual bill so you could read it for yourself.

http://www.publicknowledge.org/pdf/110-hr-ow-20080 424.pdf

In Response to aprotim (#43098):

Sorry. I didn't mean to reply to your comment. This message board system is new to me.

In Response to kaiki (#43105):

There are two copies of the bill. One introduced in the house and one introduced in the senate. The house version actually has a section that requires anyone invoking this law to register their with the Copyright office or else it defaults back to plain old theft.

Done and done sir, I had to modify the text a touch on the prepared stuff (It read as if I were an artist, I changed it so it read that I was supporter of artists)

Brad I have been following your work and reading your news posts for years, so I know you always have you ear to the ground for anything that might hinder a creators rights.

The fact that this bill is on a fast tract is enough to make me concerned about its true intentions.

Your account of this bill is completely inaccurate. You need to read the law before you start opining about it. Go to http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi ?dbname=110_cong_bills&docid=f:h5889ih.txt.pdf and read what the law actually says.

Among other things, anyone using a work without permission from the copyright owner has to make a very thorough search for the copyright owner (and believe me, your work would be very easy to identify, anyone claiming that he or she was unable to locate you would be laughed out of court) and then, once a search for the copyright owner has failed (i.e. a true 'orphaned work' is apparently identified), when the 'infringer' uses the work that use must be identified - if the 'infringer' does not make it apparent that he or she has used a work without permission he or she receives no immunity. Part of that 'make it apparent' includes registering that 'infringing use' with the Copyright Office so that if there is an extant copyright owner he or she has an easy way to find infringing works. If an infringing work is identified the infringer still has to pay the 'reasonable fee' that he or she would have had to pay if the earlier search had found the copyright owner and they had been able to negotiate prior to the use of the work (with an exception for immediate cessation of infringement, or 'Fair Uses', which are already allowed).

In short, this bill does none of the things that you were objecting to. Read the law. http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi ?dbname=110_cong_bills&docid=f:h5889ih.txt.pdf

In Response to christophergwyn (#43132):

Chris's link appeared dead. He makes the same arguments that the stock photography companys make in support of this bill. If you want to find some loopholes in their argument check out.

http://www.illustratorspartnership.org/01_topics/a rticle.php?searchterm=00185

Jayb's URL was truncated. I'm going to repost it here [illustrato...ership.org] because it has some good information in it.

First off, I'd like to welcome everyone who has registered primarily so they could weigh in on this topic. :) I've never seen so many first-time posters in the life of this blog! I had no idea there were so many lurkers here! I'm looking forward to your joining our other conversations as well! :)

As far as my understanding of the bill goes, please let me assure you all that I have read the bill, I understand it, and I'm against it.

Furthermore, Stu Rees, a lawyer who has worked on behalf of cartoonists for years, is against it. And he has much more experience reading those sorts of documents than I do.

And, professional groups that hold similar interests, such as the National Cartoonists Society, are against it.

But, at the end of the day, as technoextreme rightly pointed out, I strongly advocate reading documents such as this for one's self, and making one's own mind up.

I have. And it is.

I have alerted my legislators as to my thoughts on the bill, and I encourage my readers to do the same.

Moreover, let's say that I'm wrong. Let's say I'm completely off-base. There's nothing good that's being prevented by stopping this law. Not for the creative community, at least. I can't see a single thing in that law that favors the common man that would be forgone if that bill never saw the light of day. So I'm even doubly comfortable advocating my point of view.

Now, I love to argue politics as much as the next guy, but I want to make something very clear here. I will not be wasting a lot of time coming in here to address the torrent of "yeah but" statements and "You're missing the point" posts. You guys are perfectly free to your views, and I encourage you to embrace them. This can turn into a real time sink for me, and I'm afraid I'm running too far behind on other stuff to get too wound up in arguing about this.

Me? My opinion is pretty solid here. I think it's a bad bill.

In Response to Guigar (#43137):

I read the bill as well; the main problem with the bill is that there are sections of it that can be abused.

A very good friend of mine whose job in DC is to look into bills such as these gave me some advice that I would like to pass on to any artist that opposes this bill. Items in [ ] are added by me.

“If you ask me web artists should write in to Leahy [Patrick Leahy of Vermont, evidently he wrote a forward for one of the Green Arrow Trades] and to Sen. Brownback of Kansas (the Republican sponsor of the Senate bill). And if they can't persuade them, they should start addressing their concerns to anyone they can in the Senate - it's much easier to kill a bill in the Senate than in the House. Even if they can just delay it until the Senate adjourns this fall for the elections, that would buy some extra time as they would have to start the bill over from scratch in the 111th Congress.”

Don’t know if that advice will help or not, but there it is.

While this bill may indeed be a bad solution (many things in need of a solution get a government action that makes it worse, not better), you pretty well alienate me (and many others, I suspect) when you post something like this:

"There's nothing good that's being prevented by stopping this law."

Copyright law is an absolute wreck; important works that should be cited or shown in some cases cannot be (safely) because there is no way to find who owns them, and doing it without permission is to risk bankruptcy (especially for the "common man" that you referenced later).

There are real problems that need solutions, and this bill appears to address at least some of them.

Of course, in typical government/bureaurocratic fashion, it also creates problems, so it may well be, in sum, a bad bill.

But simply blowing off the very real problems it addresses doesn't help any.

This bill is in the wrong because it opens the door for abuse and caps damages. When artists create a body of work for present and future income they can't afford to cherry pick the good from the bad in a proposed bill. Good intent is not an argument for a bad law.

Illustratorspartnership.org has been trying to educate about stock houses and variations of the orphaned works law for 8 years. This is not a new battle and it is a real threat to small business.

Copyright and ownership is really all artists have and it needs to be protected from all fronts.

In Response to jayb (#43135):

The link works just fine. The problem you experienced is due to the line break that the software on this site sticks into the link. Copy and paste the link, once you get the error message scroll through the link and delete the '%20' in it and you will have the correct url that will correctly load. (The same problem, and solution, occur with the link that you posted.)

In Response to Guigar (#43137):

What parts of the bill make it a bad bill? Be specific. I have a great deal of experience with copyright law, and with attempting to track down the copyright owner (and a very high success rate), I read the bill and the descriptions that you gave of it simply do not match what I read. It would be very helpful if you would say exactly what clauses in the proposed law you find objectionable.

As for 'the good that would be prevented by stopping this law' - there are lots and lots and lots of 'orphan works', material that is still under copyright but for which there is no _existing_ market for and no apparent way to find the copyright owner. Among other things this bill would make it more possible to locate the copyright owner because the 'potential infringer' will be required to do a 'thorough search' - a legal requirement that will support a small industry devoted to finding copyright owners, a competitive industry that is always attempting to improve its search abilities. And even if a search turns up no copyright owner (who, remember, is not always the creator of the art) the 'infringer' still has a legal obligation to pay the copyright owner (if he/she appears) the kind of fee that they would have negotiated for if they had been able to do so before the 'infringement' occurred.

In Response to Silvanus (#43138):

"the main problem with the bill is that there are sections of it that can be abused."

Be specific. What sections are you referring to?

In Response to jayb (#43140):

"This bill is in the wrong because it opens the door for abuse and caps damages."

Which sections of the bill 'open the door for abuse', and which section caps damages?

I do not see any 'caps' on damages in the bill. The bill makes it very clear that its protections do not apply to an infringer who does not make a diligent search (which can include requiring that the infringer spend money on that search) has no protection, and that an 'infringer' who does not pay the copyright owner a fee that is approximately the same as what they would have negotiated for if they had been able to negotiate prior to the infringement receives no protection under this law. (Their only other avenue if they are unwilling or unable to pay the copyright owner is to immediately cease the infringement, a protection only available to them if they have made no money from the infringement.) I do not see any way that those characteristics could be described as 'a cap on damages'....

In Response to deoxy (#43139):

"Of course, in typical government/bureaurocratic fashion, it also creates problems, so it may well be, in sum, a bad bill."

What parts of the bill 'create problems'?

In Response to Guigar (#43137):

First off, I'd like to welcome everyone who has registered primarily so they could weigh in on this topic. :) I've never seen so many first-time posters in the life of this blog! I had no idea there were so many lurkers here! I'm looking forward to your joining our other conversations as well! :)

Hehehe... I thought the same thing. Anyway I agree with you. Too many things to do to start debating with people.

I get the impression that no one can find anything in the actual text of the law to support the misinterpretations that were being promulgated here. Forming opinions about things is fine, even forming opinions based on rumor, but when someone advocates that others endorse a position on an issue it is essential that some actual facts be presented. Advocating for the rejection of this proposed law requires being clear about what specific elements of the law are objectionable....data that no one has presented here.

christophergwyn,

Seriously, man, get a grip - you've got almost half the posts on this thing. I am one of the people who reacted poorly to this post, so much so that I registered just to post on it, and your obsessive behaviour is making me wonder if a) you're one of the bills sponsors and/or have a personal stake in this bill, and b) maybe it really is a good bill, since someone so freaky is against it.

You've made your point, OK? Posting the same point 10 times (several of them literally without anyone else posting in between) doesn't make it better.

Um wow, screwed that up - read "maybe it is a good bill, because someone so freaky is against is" as the opposite, ok?

"maybe it is a bad bill, since someone so freaky is for it".

Wow, that was pretty bad.