Okay, so, thanks for clearing out the obviously overdone panic. thought it sounded like a little too much. it does however not change my opinion. I know there is in fact no bill, and not really worth discussion - i just want to give my thought on it.

- As far as i gather the idea is to allow the use of work where the owner cannot be found, there has been an honest search for the owner and nothing more to be done. Once owner appears it is no longer orphaned. Maybe there were good intentions - i just disagree.

i don't regard any work as truly orphaned - there is an owner, you just don't know who it is. Whereas there may be instances where it is "impossible", or at least exceedingly hard, to find the creator/owner of, for example, an image you find online - it is still easily identifiable as "not yours to decide over". It is, unlike a human orphan, not neccessarily (with exception of, for example, old photographs) in need of your loving care to exist. A digital image definitely isn't.

not that it stops all those problems occurring anyway. already happening, just don't care to see part of it legal.

And it still seems highly exploitable to me (of course, i can't make a full judgement as there.... is no bill). just passing a few thoughts out. It just screams lawsuit party to me.