Quote:
Originally Posted by charleski
Long terms certainly add to the problem, but I don't think they represent the core issue.
|
I concur, it won't help. (I still think Life + 50 is better though.)
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by charleski
Let's say you chance upon a stack of small-run magazines printed on low-grade newsprint 30 years ago which are busy dissolving in their own acid. Should our culture lose the contents forever? Remember that any copying of the magazines is a violation of copyright.
|
Actually, that's not quite accurate.
Libraries already have an exemption for archival uses. You as an individual are also allowed to format shift. However, you are not allowed to
redistribute that content without the permission of the rights holder.
Also, let's keep in mind that Google believes only 10% of the works they scanned are actually orphaned; the rest are merely out of print (
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10300887-93.html).
So while I believe almost everyone agrees that orphan works should be handled better, that particular issue isn't really going to hold up or cripple the Google book scanning project. Fixing it certainly does not justify eviscerating active copyrights, forcing authors to publish their books through Google in digital form with zero negotiation, or requiring registration.