[charleski]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

The Google Books settlement also only applies to the US, so I think it's OK to discuss US laws.

Well, if we're only talking about the US, the section 107 defence might protect the private creation of a single copy for the purposes of preservation, but unlike the section 108 rights, it wouldn't allow that to be shown to anyone else.

Yes, that doesn't mean you can't sue at all (though it is highly advantageous to register).

The point is that, contrary to your portrayal, copyright's current approach to registration represents the exception, not the rule. Other IP rights need to be registered to be valid.

Perhaps because the volume of content that requires copyright protection has inflated dramatically since 1708, and because the copyright office already has an 18 month backlog? Just a thought.

So? No-one's asking copyright holders to trot down to the Stationer's Office and write their claim in a book. We're perfectly capable of handling similar large databases in a cost-efficient manner. Advances in information technology have more than outstripped the volume of copyrightable data that is produced. Your figure of $500million was plucked out of thin air. The real cost would be a fraction of that.

Objections to automatic application of copyright also are based on hysterical scare-stories of orphaned works languishing inaccessibly in attics, with the public weeping over the perceived loss.

If it's gone, it's gone. Our culture has already lost an untold wealth of material from the past because in earlier ages the process of copying and preservation was difficult. Now this is no longer the case, yet copyright seeks to impose artificial restrictions to prevent it. Maybe you don't weep over the destruction of the Library of Alexandria, but plenty of others do.

Every time I turn around, someone is modifying what copyright and/or the public domain is about. I swear, I'm getting whiplash.

Article 1, Section 8 of the US constitution:
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"

Are you not familiar with the constitution? It was pretty clear in stating that the purpose of copyright is to promote cultural progress. The problems with copyright all stem from later modifications to its initial purpose which we need to reject.

At least some of the works will get re-registered at some point, only to later come under dispute and/or the rights holder goes out of business. I.e. unless you make registration an onerous burden, you're not going to rescue a lot of work.

What, precisely, are you suggesting here? Because this paragraph makes no sense.