Honestly I'm not even that moved by the "orphaned works" argument anymore Unless the orphaned work in question contains the cure for cancer it's not that big a deal I can easily imagine authors deliberately "orphaning" their works and I think they have a right to
-
Show this thread
-
It's part of the general "right to be forgotten" If I wrote a shitty novel fifteen years ago that got published but never sold well, I have the right to say "I want this permanently taken out of print until 70 years after I die"
4 replies 0 retweets 20 likesShow this thread -
Why is it so fucking important that everything be available to your greedy prying eyes Is the entertainment or scholarly of historical value of every "lost" book so great that the consent of the actual human being who made it doesn't matter to you Fuck you man
3 replies 2 retweets 25 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @arthur_affect
Really weird take. It’s not just books that are orphaned. It’s recorded media that is decaying in storage. You want to make a provision in copyright law that your shitty book should be forgotten? Fine. But don’t throw out the works of people who did want their material to live on
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Orphaned works that were orphaned as a side effect of corporate personhood and work-for-hire are a different matter (the rightsholder is a company that ceased to exist) But that should really be the exception or loophole in copyright or droits d'auteur, not vice versa
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.