[asterisk-users] HR 5889.

[Tilghman Lesher]

On Saturday 05 July 2008 19:59:25 Tom Poe wrote:
> Tilghman Lesher wrote:
> > On Saturday 05 July 2008 18:33:50 Alex Balashov wrote:
> >> I am curious for your thoughts on US HR 5889:
> >>
> >> http://blamcast.net/articles/orphaned-works-open-source-copyright
> >>
> >> While I am sure that the implications of this bill, as it appears to be
> >> constructed, have no significant implication on Asterisk as such, it
> >> could potentially injure the community of open-source addons, modules,
> >> and helper applications surrounding it and essential to its use in many
> >> scenarios.
> >
> > After reading the bill in question, I have little doubt that the authors
> > of that blog piece are, to put it mildly, full of it.  HR 5889 makes
> > clear mention of the diligence that is required, and, if notified of the
> > infringement, the infringer must cease to make use of the work, unless he
> > pays the copyright owner a price that the owner demands.  Furthermore,
> > the existence of an active email account on the copyrighted work in
> > question would completely negate any claim of due diligence, by the plain
> > language of the bill.
> >
> > Additionally, the blog piece completely misses the qualification of the
> > commercial database:  to qualify, they must contain all authors and all
> > contact information, and if any contact information is readily available,
> > and they do not put it in their database, they stand to lose
> > certification as a copyright database.  So much for having to pay to
> > register your work.  In short, this bill is very well balanced, and I
> > certainly hope it becomes law.
>
> Then again, Lessig felt strong enough about the bill to publish an op-ed
> in the NYT.

I am not familiar with that.  Perhaps you would be kind enough to mention the
URL?

> By the way, are you familiar with the senator that authored 
> the bill?

The bill in question is HR 5889.  That is a House notation, and therefore,
this bill was introduced by a Representative.  There may be a similar bill
before the Senate, but that is not this one.  Perhaps you have the legislation
confused with another bill?  It is not uncommon for the provisions for a
similar bill in purpose to be vastly different between the House and Senate
versions.  I can only speak to the bill I read.

-- 
Tilghman