I'm laughing at all the updates of journals this morning who sound a bit like this:

"oh, there's no Orphan Works bill, people we all over-reacted you guys are such losers!".

I don't think there being a communal discussion which raised awareness is a bad thing at all. For one, I watched the 2008 congressional hearing, and they don't hold those for things that don't exist. Everyone who was at that hearing has been going on about the Orphan Works Bill since it was introduced and they're not going to throw away years of work but rather their intent is to [of course] pass such a bill.

I don't think an ounce of my journal was panicky, quite the opposite as I tend to prefer unbiased and pliable thoughts in general. The people who are posting all the "you're all such morons I'm a golden-God of knowledge... bow down to me sheep!" journals saw one journal that they thought was proof of a non-existing bill, and like the sheep they claim to be flocking above, they in turn made journals and comments to other journals belittling anyones rather legitimate concern.

So question is. Had there been no "panic" does any one of you believe that any of the news would have made it to you? Panic and concern causes humans to communicate, it's a form of self & group preservation... it is not always "baaaaaaahd".

If there wasn't communication, the bill would be written, none of us would have read it, it would have been passed and at the end of the summer we might start finding out about it. And with gaping mouths and doe-eyes we would be asking "but why didn't I hear about this?". It's because old men in round rooms are constantly making decisions they hope go undetected until after the fact.

Brad Holland and his group have decided to make it their job to make certain artists have ears in Washington [and that things don't just slip under the radar due to artist apathy]. He believes this bill is going to effect artists in a pretty big way if it isn't modified just so.

And you know until I have a reason to believe otherwise, I'm willing to trust that he's being honest and has some stake in whether or not such a bill passes.

If I'm wrong, so what?

If they write it ONLY to effect historical works and ONLY to be used for non-profit educational institutions such as museums, schools, and libraries then fantastic! But if in any way it's written to where corporations can profit commercially from clearly modern work, then that's a problem. It's good that there's at least some awareness that'll cause everyone to read over the bill [carefully] when the draft is released this week or the next (or whenever).

There can be no blanket bill. That thing better be riddled with exceptions.

The big negative I see with people reading a few journals saying that The Orphan Works bill shouldn't concern them is that those people will actually blindly buy into that. They can return to not feeling they need to at least read the bill when it comes out.

Actually reminds me a bit (in an obscure sort of way) of a few years ago when scientists kept on talking about global warming being something people need to concern themselves with, and people got all upset and actually starting to care momentarily (rare indeed is anything done unless the need is a dire one). Then these other "scientists" came along and "proved" there was no such thing as global warming and it was just a scare-tactic, and so everyone was more than happy to return to where they were with regards to trying to help the planet; not doing jack-shite.

Which is really where man-monkeys are their happiest.