United States Pirate Party

 The following essay was sent to me from FelixTheCat.
 

    This document regards a currently dead bill known as the Orphaned Works Act. Many readers will probably be wondering why I would bother writing about a dead bill. Beside the fact that the bill may be ressurected, this document has two goals: (a)to help the reader understand the goals of the corporate special interest groups in regard to copyrighting, and (b)to provide a talking-point in regards to the inconsistancies of what is being said and what is being done.
    
    The Orphaned Works Act was introduced to legislation in 2008 in an attemt to reform copyrights. The current legal definition of an orphaned work is a creative work that is difficult or impossible to place to an owner. In certain cases it is legal to use these works without the creator's permission. The OWA was meant to create a system in which all works had to be registerred in order to be protected by copyright. All unregisterred works would be considered "orphaned", even if the owner was immediately available. The special interest groups backing the legislation explained that this would make it more difficult to steal a copyrighted work.
    
    Let's take a careful look at this system by following a creative work on its way through. I write a novel, a beautiful thing full of energy and color. The moment I finish it is no longer mine. I call up a copyright company to recieve a copyright on the story, but they want to charge me $100 dollars to register. I, being a small time writer, can't afford to pay that kind of money. I skimp on the copyright. I take the story and post it on deviantART, but unlike before I can't ask that they won't be used in a commercial manner. A creative manager from Disney finds my story. Disney likes it alot, they make three crappy over-produced movies based on the story. I don't get a cent and starve to death.
    
    Now let's look at another work. A full time script writer at a major movie company writes a script. The company pays for the copyright. The uncreative market driven movie hits the theaters and earns hundreds of millions of dollars. The amateur script writer makes a fortune and retires.
    
    These two scenarios demonstrate that the system benefits certain people above others. Clearly, those with the money to copyright every little work they create includes very rich people and corporations. Those who would have to chance their works being stolen are the working class and starting artists. The system also discourages any real advancement. Corporations do not use creative or progressive vision. Marketing is the eyes of business, and they look forever backward at what people wanted before and past trends. They create a loop, basically like eating your own shit. All the small-time artists that push creative progress would not only cease to exist, but cease to be able to exist.
    
    So when you hear about these companies talking about how we're thieves and pirates, taking their over-priced shit for free, laugh. They would, and will try, to do the same to us under the pretext of protecting copyrights. They aren't looking out for progress or creative minds, they're looking out for the only thing that business cares about, profit. Business exists to make money and will do so in anyway they can. It's up to us knowing the difference between a helping hand and a knife in the back.