Although a three million euro ($4.5m) bail isn't cheap, I have the suspicion it won't be that hard for him to raise.

And that's all I have to say for now.

Based on an item on the news todayyesterday:

State court tells guy he never paid a ticket in 1999 and that he will have to pay it, plus almsot $1k in interest/fines. Guy says not only did he pay it in 1999, but that he is especially irked because a few months after paying in 1999 he was told he hadn't paid and had to go back to court and show that he had indeed paid. Sadly he apparently decided after some years of not being gone after to stop looking after the financial records with a paranoid eye.

Which raises two questions for me.
1) Shouldn't there be record of his going back to court to show that it had been paid. And shouldn't this be something that can be used to quash the current claim?
2) Isn't it normally the one making a claim that is expected to prove it. "You never paid!" Should be answerable with, "Okay, produce the complete file, and explain why for a decade a supposedly unpaid claim wasn't pursued."

And additional bit, a DMV official on camera said with a straight face and without apparently thinking there was anything wrong with it, "When you pay your ticket, hold onto the proof." "For how long?" "I'd say forever."

Um. Yeah.

So, I got to thinking about the issue of Orphan Works.

I think one thing I would require in an Orphan Works bill before I would approve of it is:

1a: Require that someone actually document what they have done to search for a rights owner, and
1b: You don't then just use the work, you take your documentation to (either court, or a panel set up specifically for this) and they review your search and say yea or nay to using it.

Okay, lie, more than one thing.

2: After ruling on whether or not the work could be used there would be an official government registry of Orphan Work requests, and the ruling would be entered into it.
2b: Anyone else could then skip the research stage if they add their use and contact information to the registry.
2c: Anyone else could review the registry and challenge a designation of Orphan Work status by presenting evidence to show who a rights holder was.

I don't like the idea of having multiple competing registries, unless perhaps they are split by media type (photo registry, written text registry, etc) administered by one office. Access to the registry should also be open and free. No one should have to pay to find out if something of theres is in it. There should also he a high standard required in the research. No, "Well, I looked up the magazine and it's out print now, so it's free to use, right?" You should have to show how and were you looked.

I also like another idea I heard. Sure, you get your initial copyright free and clear. But it should be for a length closer to older copyrights, and renewing it should not be automatic. If you can't be bothered to fill out a form saying, "I want to renew the copyright on my book X goes to Y and does Z" should the government really be bothered to smack people down for doing stuff with it?

There should also be very stiff penalties for presenting false evidence, and the panel that reviews claims should have the ability to levy at least a modest fine if it's ruled that you should have been able to find out who the rights holder was with even a modest search. "Why no, honest, I tried for months to find out who might own this movie called Muppet Treasure Island." I also wouldn't complain if there was a waiting period between "Hmm, yes, you did do a decent search" and "Alright you can use it" during which the item in question would be posted with a bounty should anyone track down the owner (pay the bounty with a combination of department funding, application fees, and "You wasted our time trying to claim Men In Black was an Orphan Work?" fines).