What is the difference between a good intention and a bad idea? Well, when it comes to EITHER one of the two so-called “Orphan Works” bills currently being considered at the Hill, the answer is: It doesn’t matter!
Americans have learned that you can sell virtually anything to anyone, if you manage to rationalize your perspective in a manner consistent with what you know to be receptive in the mind of the masses. Controlling the mentality of the masses is the backbone of indoctrination (e.g. Communism for one).
I know a bit about this, because of my origins. Unfortunately, I’m now gaining new education in the U.S. as to these tactics, in the very country from which my family sought refuge from dictatorship. But I digress…
“Good intentions” are irrelevant when they render disastrous outcomes. The judicial system may recognize the good intention of an individual that has committed a crime, but it must still provide a punishment to fit the crime; anything less than this would result in anarchy.
So, we’re “told” of the good intentions to resolve an alleged “problem” with current copyright law. We are being fed a rationalization that, as a society, we must seek the “common good”. Sound familiar? It does to me–painfully so.
Hence, come in the “Orphan Works” bills; a Senate version and a House version. They embody a pretext of engaging the realization of today’s evolving technologies, but they hide a frightening consequence for all of society.
However, under scrutiny reason will point to corporate greed as the source for the effort that is under way. Museums, libraries, and other public institutions are the effective smoke screens covering the true significance of these bills. This is nothing less than an assault on the private rights of artists, both as creative individuals and citizens of a “free” nation.
Intellectual property is a serious concern. Intellectual property is not just an abstracted concept, it is a tangible reality, and recognized as such through precedents of law.
A simple fact: An artist’s creation is a product, a brand, an asset. As such, the artist is wholly entitled to retaining for themselves the recognition of authorship and dictating the manner in which such a product is presented or “packaged”, modified or in any way altered by human hands, or otherwise “consumed” by the public.
Yet, the public will have total claim to these products if these bills (as currently written) make their way into law. Where will this leave artists, particularly under the current economical strain, to protect their property and/or use it to make a living?
These questions beckon serious consideration. Congress appears to be ready-set to go forth in favor of special interests, in which there’s no wiggle-room for artists. In effect, artists are being told that they’re second-class citizens, and that their contributions merit no recognition.
Go to OWOH.ORG to learn a bit more. Stand in opposition to “enslavement”. Save America!
