I'm not clear on what's supposed to be so bad about this law.<p>The article fails to explain that the <i>intent</i> 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.<p>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.<p>So what's the problem?
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.
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.<p>However given the opponents this probably isn't the case. But this article gives us nothing.