Gosh, the people that wrote the article doesn't want others to think they're full of shit? Amazing.

I can't really spend all my time disassembling these two idiots' crap, especially because jesus christ they talk too much, so I'll just pick on the most obvious flaws.

Okay so, Q&A 1 through 4 is about why they brought it up, and gives some crap about how a new law is going to be proposed, and that their "sources" say it is going to be "basically the same" as the old one.

For fuck's sake, in the VERY ARTICLE THAT THEY LINK TO, it says this: "Given concerns previously expressed by some visual artist groups, the IP Subcommittee will probably make a few revisions to the language." In other words, the bill is being revised to address their concerns. So the original questions continue to stand: why the fuck are you making such an awful noise???.

"Since that would give us only a month to notify artists, we decided to start now."
When you have a distribution medium like the Internet, a month to "get the word out" is more than enough time (especially considering that my response was written less than 3 days after the original article was posted, and I'd never even heard of these people before then). They're just being spoiled, reactionary assholes that are trying to save face.

"(Getty and Corbis oppose the bill, but are negotiating for favorable concessions.)"
WHAT THE FUCK. The original article said that Bill Gates, as the chairman of Corbis, was trying to steal everyone's money because he's the founder of it. You can't have it both ways, guys!

"- Unregistered work will be considered a potential orphan from the moment you create it."
Bullshit. I addressed this already. The 2006 law had a 50 year initial period of guaranteed copyright.

"- Value: In the marketplace the ability to sell exclusive rights to a client triples the value of your work."
Bullshit. Pulling numbers out their arses. If someone is going to make outrageous claims like this, they absolutely have to cite them.

"Since infringements can occur anytime, anywhere in the world, they could be countless but you might never find them."
This is different from how things are currently... how, exactly??

"Under this bill, you would never again be able to assure a client that your work hasn’t been – or won’t be – infringed."
I guess I didn't get the memo that current copyright laws have made unauthorised use of works completely impossible. Again, a totally ridiculous argument.

"12. So it turns out that in the real world, uncertainty in the mind of a bad actor is the only weapon you have to protect your copyright."
Oh, okay. So you can't assure that a work won't be infringed. So why did you say you could, and this law would change it?

"If an [sic] bad actor guesses wrong, he’ll be liable under current law for statutory damages of up to $150,000 per infringement, plus attorneys fees. This is a powerful incentive for a thief not to risk stealing our work."
Even under proposed orphan works legislation, an infringer would still have to go to court, and they would still have to pay compensation for use of the work, and they would still have to pay for their own attorneys, and they would still have to take the time and effort to go to court and provide proof that they made a reasonably diligent attempt to find the copyright holder. Is he seriously arguing that unreasonable monetary punishments function as a better deterrent? (And remind me how many millions of American households already pirate music, movies, and software with these laws in place?)

"In drafting the 1976 Copyright Act, Congress weighed the issue of older works whose owners can’t be located. They concluded that the problem it created for users was outweighed by the benefits of harmonizing U.S. copyright law with international copyright law." In drafting the 2006 report on orphan works, the U.S. copyright office concluded that the year 1976 was wrong and orphan works are a problem. With 30 years' experience since the 1976 law (and 5 years since the 2001 Sonny Bono extension), I think 2006 probably knows better.

"This would be like trying to solve the crime problem by making everything legal." Bollocks. This is a bad bad horrible analogy. A still inaccurate but more apt analogy would be more like finding an expensive watch on the street and giving it to the police. After a period of time passes and nobody comes to claim it, it becomes the property of the finder. If we were to compare this to current copyright law, instead of the finder getting to take ownership, the object would be forfeited to the state. Still a bad analogy, but not as contrived or ridiculous.

"Any picture [...] that hasn’t been registered could therefore be orphaned by a successful orphan works defense - even if the artist was alive and otherwise managing his copyrights." If the artist was managing his copyrights, he'd probably put it in a fucking registry if one existed and it was as important to retaining exclusive copyright as this idiot claims it is.

Both Brad and Mark really, really loves this completely unverifiable "from my notes" exchange that Brad had with someone that was no longer with the copyright office at the time the exchange occurred, as if an impromptu 4 line dialogue automatically makes the case. But it doesn't.

Anyway, I'm tired of this shit. As I've said before, Canada is also a signatory to the Berne Convention and already has its orphan works legislation, and the sky isn't falling there. Wake me up when the actual bill is proposed, and then convince me that it does more harm than good even in the worst case.