@0.9999…=1
Assuming they know what they’re talking about, it sounds pretty insidious to me.
That's why I specified in my post that overall, I neither fully support nor fully object to orphan works acts. Take, for instance, the first source provided by Calkarot. The main piece of rhetoric employed by the artist to persuade the reader to oppose the legislation is the following:
"These proposed changes to copyright laws are being lobbied for by major internet players that want to be free to catalog and monetize creative works they did not create."
As I stated previously, this is one of the implications of orphan works acts that I am ambivalent, perhaps skeptical, towards. Make no mistake: I view the vagueness surrounding orphan works at the moment to be intellectually stifling and in serious need of reform, but there's a reason why I would sleep better knowing that these proposed protections were being given to librarians and scholars as opposed to businessmen.
However, I cannot say that I am wholly against the monetized aspect of this. Firstly, note that all sources provided so far are biased; two are from artists who view themselves as firmly on one side of this, and one is from an anti-orphan works act advocacy group. Don't get me wrong; the case that they make for the potential of corporations using their muscle to the disadvantage of indie artists is not illegitimate. However, please do not allow this issue to be simplified into a matter of "creative people versus capitalists". As our friend ArchaicEX pointed out in a Skype discussion earlier today, there are potential creative benefits to a broad category of indie artists from the additional elbow room provided by clearing away the legal minefield surrounding unclaimed and orphaned works.
"The "orphan works" part would have given the Cinema Snob a defence when he used footage from a movie that he had no way of knowing was still owned by an active studio, for example, since names had changed, companies had changed hands, and the trail was impossible for a small-time YouTuber to follow. The "derivative works" changes could be the greatest legal move forward for fan artists I've ever heard of."
@Ryumaru Borike
having to register it every-time they make something
This is a misrepresentation of the nature of orphan works acts--reverting back to pre-1976 copyright laws has never been part of the agenda. The cornerstone of any such act boils down to the following (quoting from a 2008 bill):
"The user undertook a diligent and good faith search to locate the owner of the work yet could not find him or her"
Then, and only then, does the user have legal maneuvering space to do something with the work. Registration is a steadfast assurance, but making it mandatory for copyright is of course a ridiculous and reactionary idea. Ensuring protection of your work with an orphaned works act in place could be as simple as putting your signature on the piece. A strong majority of (especially skilled) artists already do this to ensure that reposts can be traced back to them, so very little would change.