Originally Posted by DawnFalcon
I disagree. Cheap, mandatory licensing for copyrighted orphan and unavailable works. The author gets paid, but you cannot subtract knowledge from the Human corpus of knowledge, and you'll get better rates for keeping your own version available.
I like the idea of statutory licensing is a great idea, along with shorter copyrights for a fixed term. We've gone though this before, I don't believe in lifetime copyrights, UK rules are the UK's buisness but in the US I read "limited Times" to mean a maximum fixed time I've advocated 56 years time and time again but if say the law was amended to say life plus blah but not to exceed 95 years (the current too long time of corporate copyright.) I'd still argue for shorter times but I'd at least feel the law was more in line with the constitutional requirement of limited times.
Also I'm starting to think copyright is itself a misleading word, distributionright might be more apt. If I littered my house with piles of photocopies of copyrighted material or with hard drives filled with millions of copies of the same copyrighted file I can't think of any reason why I should fall afowl of any copyright law. Considering the near universal dislike for DRM on these board most seem to agree that the making of copies isn't the issue.