At 02:22 PM 1/19/2003 -0800, Paul T. Jackson wrote:
>It's possible (if enough pressure is brought to bear) that congress can
>update the copyright law to indicate that a work would be open to copying
>for certain purposes if it was not being commercially exploited, and that
>the companies involved would have to file with the copyright office that
>indeed they were pursuing commercial exploitation of their products --
>otherwise they would be open to P. D. -- sort of a mandatory licensing
>like music, but for reproduction of the original. DMCA initially had this
>type of necessary burden on the producer, but apparently it didn't make
>the final cut.
There is some of this in DMCA. As I understand it, a library or archive may
jump the gun and reproduce a protected work after 'only' seventy-five years
if the copyright holder does not state an intent to reissue it themselves.
I have not seen definitions of "library" or "archive", a mechanism for
informing those who might have rights, or a means for declaring intent.
But then, I am not an attorney.
[log in to unmask]