Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Media

Orphaned Works and the Requirement To Preserve Metadata 129

Posted by Unknown Lamer
from the missing-the-obvious dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Orphaned works legislation promises to open older forgotten works to new uses and audiences. Groups like ASMP think it's inevitable. But it comes with the risk of defanging protection for current work when the creator cannot be located. Photographer Mark Meyer wonders if orphaned works legislation also needs language to compel organizations like Facebook to stop their practice of stripping metadata from user content in order to keep new work from becoming orphans to begin with. Should we have laws to make stripping metadata illegal?" The author notes that excessive copyright terms may be to blame; if that's the case why lobby for Orphaned Works legislation? On a related note, Rick Falkvinge asks if we should revisit the purpose of the copyright monopoly.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Orphaned Works and the Requirement To Preserve Metadata

Comments Filter:
  • by lister king of smeg (2481612) on Tuesday December 04, 2012 @04:22AM (#42177001)

    How can you ban people from deleting the meta data. Are you going to ban hex edditors or text edditors? What about file systems that don't support metadata like fat? Or what about when people don't like your naming/notation conventions will that be banned to? A while back I had a itunes giftcard that I wanted to redeem so I had to install itunes. It went through "cataloging my music library" instead it indescriminatly deleted meta data and other files and renaming and disorganizing many. How will they deal with faulty programs like that will they be liable for removal of metadata?

  • by wvmarle (1070040) on Tuesday December 04, 2012 @04:27AM (#42177021)

    This alone is an interesting question. How much work does one have to put in locating a work's copyright holder? How much effort do we have to put into remembering that information?

    The summary already presents an interesting case: Facebook stripping metadata, such as the author name, from copies of works they receive. A short while later no-one can remember who it was from; so it is orphaned now? This would open an avenue of legal infringement. Especially with smaller works like photos it may be hard to find the original maker if the metadata is gone. Or should we consider such orphans as "copyright protected" and prohibit any further distribution unless the distributor can show they have the rights?

    It's not exactly easy. Especially in this digital age where information can be wiped or added without a trace. Metadata can be stripped, it can also be added or changed, and then it becomes hard to prove which version is the original.

  • by blahplusplus (757119) on Tuesday December 04, 2012 @05:01AM (#42177127)

    "Copyrights is actually a good thing. But like many other thing, too much a good thing can become bad, very very bad."

    You're ignorant of the law. People said the same when copyright was first implemented long time ago, the "just the right amount people" have no credibility. See here:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act [wikipedia.org]

    Copyright has been extended EVERY single time, there was not a time where copyright was NOT extended at request of corporations/greedy rich stars.

    For those interested in the law and history of law relating to copyright see here:

    http://homepages.law.asu.edu/~dkarjala/opposingcopyrightextension/default.htm [asu.edu]

    And this speech for good measure for all the "copyright moderates". The same thing was said long before you all were born.

    http://homepages.law.asu.edu/~dkarjala/opposingcopyrightextension/commentary/MacaulaySpeeches.html [asu.edu]

    My personal view is there is not going to be a legal solution forthcoming because most human beings are not concerned/too ignorant/stupid/illiterate.

  • by bfandreas (603438) on Tuesday December 04, 2012 @05:57AM (#42177313)
    Since copyright is only a temporary protection before a work goes into the public domain we need to take steps for preservation.

    A copyright holder should have the duty to take sufficient measures that the work is still existant when it is ready to enter the public domain. And that means backups.
    We have lost quite a lot of movies and semi-lost a lost of books, TV shows, radio recordings and whatnot to fire, negligence and not interest to publish it.

    Just a couple of weeks ago I wanted to get recordings of a radio show I was quite fond of as a kid. It had 44 episodes. The publisher who currently hold the publishing rights sell it on CD or digital download for 10€ a pop. And they only sell the first 4 episodes. So not only was I facing extortionate pricing but also unavailability. As per my scheme this should void their copyright.
    I say if the copyright holder doesn't want to sell his stuff or make it otherwise available he should be denied copyright protection. which would also finish off the Disney vault.

    This kind of protection needs some strings attached. Basically every cultural achievement of the last hundred years is for sale and owned by whoever. We don't own our own culture anymore.

Nothing is more admirable than the fortitude with which millionaires tolerate the disadvantages of their wealth. -- Nero Wolfe

Working...