

France: All your books are belong to us - FluidDjango
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/02/29/france_authors_rights_compulsory_acquisition/

======
ggchappell
I'm not clear on what's supposed to be so bad about this law.

The article fails to explain that the _intent_ of the law is to deal with the
problem of orphaned works. It creates a process whereby out-of-print works can
have have their copyright seized by the state, in order to make them available
in digital form. Out-of-print works with a copyright date prior to 2001 are to
be entered into a publicly available list. Listed works can be challenged for
6 months. Works that are not challenged within this period, have their rights
seized, so that they can be published again.

Perhaps the specifics of the law are problematic, but on the surface, it looks
like a great idea to me. Authors get rights to their works for 11 years, after
which, if the work remains available, things proceed as they do now. But out-
of-print works whose authors cannot be found, can be legally made available
again. And the process has checks on possible abuses.

So what's the problem?

~~~
Jun8
This in is essence exactly the argument that Google Books is using so
copy/paste all the arguments against that (the French were particularly vocal)
to see the problem.

If I had to choose between the government (French, US, whatever) and Google
doing such a thing, I would _definitely_ choose an entity like Google on the
grounds that since they stand to make money and have a stake, they'll manage
it better than a typical government can.

~~~
bryanlarsen
The difference between a corporation and a government is that the corporation
has a clear conflict of interest. Also, keep in mind that French governmental
organizations are typically less dysfunctional than American ones.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
_French governmental organizations are typically less dysfunctional than
American ones_

Sorry, the research I've seen has shown the American government to be
marginally more effective [1] and marginally less venal [2] at a much lower
relative cost [3] than the French government. Quangos are usually in a class
of their own when it comes to derision for public sector inefficiency [4].

[1] <http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/worldmap.asp> (2010 Government
Effectiveness)

[2] <http://cpi.transparency.org/cpi2011/results/>

[3]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending#Government_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending#Government_spending_as_a_percentage_of_GDP)

[4] <http://www.economist.com/node/18867672>

------
thyrsus
This appears to be an attempt to make orphan works available to the public.
While I might like to see adjustments more friendly to authors (a longer
period before being appropriated, easier terms under which authors may
retrieve distribution of the work on their own terms), I'm not opposed to this
measure in principle.

------
nmcfarl
I would really like to see a sane analysis of this law. From this article it
could merely require registering your copyright to use it, if it's more than a
decade old. Which I personally would consider a sane way out of the current
mess when it comes to finding someone to pay when remixing, resampling and
quoting outside of fair use.

However given the opponents this probably isn't the case. But this article
gives us nothing.

~~~
aevodor
I recommend this in-depth analysis (in French, published on Feb 19):
[http://scinfolex.wordpress.com/2012/02/19/oeuvres-
orphelines...](http://scinfolex.wordpress.com/2012/02/19/oeuvres-orphelines-
une-conclusion-en-forme-de-trompe-loeil-legislatif-et-les-consequences-a-en-
tirer/) (Creative Commons license, with attribution).

------
darxius
Happy to see that the Pirate Party is standing up for fair copyright laws
regardless of who their opponent is. Hopefully this law will whither away.

~~~
cturner
Not so in this corner. Use of the idea of fairness in argument is a red flag
suggesting a lack of foundation by the person arguing.

I think this opposition suggests that the party takes its positions from who
its opponents are, rather than extending from a coherent underlying
philosophy.

The Pirate Party should take a strict line - abolish copyright altogether -
rather than buying into the premises of their opponents but then trying to
make a murky case about fairness.

The French law could lead to good things. I'm on the lookout for an event
where a government makes a significant concession against copyright and then
finds that there are trade advantages to it. A well-publicised example of this
could cause the floodgates will open, and there will be a race to liberalise.

I see a parallel to the period of history where England lost the US colonies.
They abandoned mercantalism for a free-trade model, and actually got richer
despite the loss of a major colony.

~~~
darxius
From what I understand of the Pirate Party's mandate on copyright law, it
seeks only to reform -- not abolish -- current copyright shenanigans. I got
this information from the Pirate Party of Canada (but I'm pretty sure it's a
universal mandate).

------
pfortuny
Once again, France proves itself the paradise of Socialism... This is utterly
unbelievable.

~~~
pierrebai
Unbelievable is the level of comment on HN. Let's see, the law:

1\. Aim to make available orphaned work. 2\. Only applies to work unpublished
for at least 5 years. 3\. The public publishing right can be revoked by the
author or publisher. 4\. The author is getting royalties. 5\. There is no
censoring.

Let's compare to another somewhat related case of royalties land grab, iPhone
publishing:

1\. Aim to control and profit from other people work. 2\. Applies to all
iPhone published work from day one. 3\. There is no alternative other than not
publish your iPhone app. 4\. Apple gets a cut, always. 5\. Apple gets to
decide what gets published or not, unilaterally.

It's funny also to compare this to, say, how the music radio system works.
Hey, it's compulsory diffusion of work without the author consent with a
government-prescribed royalty payment system. For current works. Ah, but music
radio stations are mostly privately owned, so this all right?

All in all, the law is reasonable and makes a honest attempt to leave the
author in control. I could even envision that small and amateur author would
want their work exclusively distributed by such a system, if the royalties are
fair.

