Re: Google settlement rejected

["Mary Murrell" <murrell@berkeley.edu>]

As far as I know, no one has ever proposed an orphan works bill 
that would satisfy the needs of a mass digitizer like Google. The 
one that almost passed -- and to Congress's credit, it got quite 
far through the process -- would in no way have solved the issue 
for a mass digitizer. A books-only bill might be the answer, 
though I've not heard anyone suggest that.

> Shall we have a listmembers' pool of predictions about how long
> it will take the U.S. Congress to clear its mind of dealing with
> true crises like incandscent bulbs and getting coddled NPR
> reporters out of LIbya and to focus on getting orphan works
> sorted out and done? They've had numerous chances.  Any Johnny
> Mathis fans among us?  Side bets also should be welcome on
> whether what Congress does ends up being more or less
> corporate-friendly than what was in the settlement.  I'm not a
> particular fan of the deceased settlement, but I also don't think
> that spending several years not solving the problem adds as much
> value as some might think.
>
> Jim O'Donnell
> Georgetown
>
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 10:24 PM,
> <jean.claude.guedon@umontreal.ca> wrote:
>
>> Jim is right about the problem, but it must be added that the
>> Google solution was not the right one. The solution for orphan
>> works should come from a legislative effort, and not from a
>> side-effect of a global agreement that did not even include all
>> the stakeholders (e.g. the readers, the educators, etc.). I
>> believe Pam Samuelson and Bernard Lang have written important
>> pieces about orphan works.
>>
>> Jean-Claude Guedon
>>
>>