I think I can get behind this (and definitely want to see software included), but I am having a little trouble understanding what ECL means - the acronym was not expanded anywhere that I can see - which means makes clear understanding of this a little difficult. Could you please expand the acronym once, preferably in the article so others who may not take the time to go to the discussion forums might benefit?
It occurs to me they could charge a modest fee for use of orphan works - maybe one-fifth what the same work would cost commercially. Publishers probably won’t permit this, because competition, but otherwise it could generate a substantial amount of badly-needed revenue. And since it will only be dirty arty hippie types paying the fee, it could be a truly bipartisan measure.
Just submitted a response to USCO. Mostly extracted (with credit) from Cory’s, with a bit of readability enhancement, extension of parallels into patent trolling and DMCA’s new application to John Deere tractors etc., and the proposal’s consequential requirement that all subsequent works be continuously monitored forever for status of referenced works, and to be re-created if a referenced work changes status.
How about we just bring back copyright formalities? The more I think about it, the better this idea seems. The abolition of copyright formalities got us into a huge mess with every utterance owned and tethered. I know it has drawbacks, but those drawbacks are better managed than the current system. Yes, there will be poor unfortunates who were simply unlucky in failing to register, but it’s better than having a system where we replace a few unfortunate people with multitudes of unwitting criminals and exploitative assholes.
It stands for “extended collective licensing” which is used once in the article but not explicitly connected to the acronym (which first appears two paragraphs later).
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.