On 30 Apr 2013, at 11:27, Naomi Korn <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Actually, it is already illegal to remove or strip rights management
> information and also illegal to remove any technical protection measures
> that might be embedded in a work.
>
> The new legislation will require reasonable searches to try and find the
> rights holders, and money will be paid by users in order to use the orphan
> works under a licensing scheme which will have detailed requirements
> attached to it.
>
> The Stop 43 crew are a very very small group of loud voices who are opposed
> to the legislative changes, and it should be noted that they accuse museums
> etc of creating Orphan Works in the first place. In fact it is the analogue
> orphan works which we are digitising and creating the metadata for. On
> average, museums spend 1/2 day trying to find the rights holders for orphan
> works, and often much much longer.
>
> I wanted to make these points, as Stop 43 have very loud voices are a small
> minority, have been involved in the discussions about the scheme, but still
> don't listen
thank you for a sensible clarification.
The register article that instigated my concern (and probably triggered the BBC one) is very alarmist.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/04/29/err_act_landgrab/
This article appears to explain things a little better:
http://www.out-law.com/en/articles/2013/april/copyright-law-reforms-in-pipeline-after-royal-assent-given-to-enterprise-and-regulatory-reform-bill/
****************************************************************
website: http://museumscomputergroup.org.uk/
Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/ukmcg
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/museumscomputergroup
[un]subscribe: http://museumscomputergroup.org.uk/email-list/
****************************************************************
